From the details you have given regarding the 'as planned' programme, i think it contains only a very basic level of detail. So if you apply impacted as planned it may produce unrealistic or inflated results. Based on the available programme i think what you could do is only to provide as plannned against as built comparison (as suggested by mike in one of the earlier posts). and then try to present your case as best as you can. It may not be accepted by the Contractor.But end of the day in such situations all these issues get settled based on what commercial bargain you intend to make with the main contractor. If your intention is only to avoid LD's (only EOT) it may not be difficult. But at some point you may need to make it explicit to the main contractor. again here i am assuming that generally in such situations the main contractor will have many other delay events (MC'c culpable delays or MC's excusable delays). So your subcontract work alone would not be creating a critical end delay to the project.
But if you intend to claim for prolongation expenses you will have to make a forensic analysis (as said by rafael) without which the MC may not accept it. Such an effort will be of any use only if you do not have any major concurrent delays.
Having worked in a similar situation, many of the personnel still do not appreciate when you say that you only intend to claim for EOT (without claiming for prolongation cost). For many in the industry, an EOT still mean eligiblity for prolongation. ie: once an EOT is granted, there is no further discussion about concurrent delays. You may need to make it clear first. Probably to your own management first.
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Sat, 2011-01-15 12:41
That there was no schedule at all or that it is faulty shall not prevent you from presenting and proving your claim. Of course will make it harder to substantiate but not impossible.
If the Schedule is faulty then the only way to prove cause and effect is to build a forensic (after the facts) schedule. Here a forensic analyst would be invaluable.
The contractual responsibility for scheduling the job is on the General Contractor not on the Subcontractor, the responsibility of the Subcontractor is to cooperate. If in order for you to make up for what is his responsibility then you shall be able to claim for the additional burden imposed upon you. I am not saying it is going to be easy for the Contractor to accept this but you shall try to make him realize he is imposing upon you some extra burden.
Maybe the fact that he is not providing you with a clear schedule and now you have to make it up can provide you with the option to interpret the schedule in any reasonable way for you, similar to the interpretation of a non clear clause of a contract, to be interpreted in any reasonable way the one who did not wrote the contract interprets the clause.
Regarding clearance dates for whole floors it all depends on the level of detail in the Contract Programme.
Since the Contract Programme milestone for tiling clearance is 1 per floor - and that milestone is a direct link to start tiling with no Lead / Lags (plus or minus) then the original intention was that tiling should start on the whole floor when clearance is given.
The logical inference from this is that the last room clearance is the date to start tiling on the whole floor.
If you are now being instructed to work room by room instead of the whole floor then you are working to a disrupted work pattern and extra time and costs would be claimable.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
23 years
Member for23 years
Submitted by Hemanth Kumar on Sat, 2011-01-15 10:40
Thanks All , and regarding Rafael's question : No i was not involved in creation of sub contractor schedule
and the schedule is not resourced one, In a floor just one bar for one activity preceided by a MEP clearance milestone
-----
and that milestone is periodically updated with an actual date and % complete by a inexperienced planner !
what is the workaround ,when in original plan only one clearance milestone is considered for a common actvity in an entire floor (say Tiling ) and real onsite clearance for tiling for 30 different rooms in a floor is given in 30 different dates?
can we introduce an FF link to MEP milestone and Tiling bar (FF+ lag , Lag days = duration required to complete one room tiling )
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Thu, 2011-01-13 23:43
Unless you have unlimited resources available at the jobsite, say hundreds of thousands men, cranes, equipment then your schedules in order to be realistic must consider the limitation.
Perhaps the original schedule if done properly accounted for certain level of resources but the delay caused a depletion of resources further delaying the start of some activities or perhaps requiring a redistribution of available resources that increased the time to perform each task.
I believe the contractor shall supply you with an electronic copy of the official schedule if he is to insist you use TIA otherwise it is impossible. With this copy, you can perform the required resource leveling to validate initial and schedule updates.
1. Did you ever was involved into the preparation of the official schedule?
2. Did the scheduler asked you about resource loading and availability of resources?
3. Was resource leveling done using good scheduling practice? Specifically I am referring to the use of soft-logic as a substitute to resource leveling, considered by most protocols a bad practice to the extent some of our specifications prohibit the use of soft logic.
4. Did you ever was asked to review the logic of the schedule?
Contractual conditions between Contractor and Subcontractor usually require subcontractors to cooperate with the schedule of activities. If the General Contractor did not provided the necessary conditions for this to occur then he prevented you to cooperate, he is preventing you from submitting a responsible analysis. I believe that for the same reason you are required to cooperate with the scheduling of the job the General Contractor is responsible to cooperate with your scheduling.
In the absence of such electronic copy you can copy the resource requirement on your spreadsheets for initial schedule and the updates, you will not be able to resource level but will be able to see if the schedules are feasible. Take no short cuts here, maybe a Day Timescale will be needed as to properly show changes in resource demand.
You seem to be in a situation where a simple As Built v As Planned method of analysis is the best way forward.
This method works well in a sub-contract situation where the sub-con trade is sandwiched between others - but you do need As Built data to make it work.
I am not sure what software you are using and I can't read the legend but it seems as though the black milestones are coming down the building while the red ones are going up.
Unless there is a very good reason to change the sequence I would say there is a fundamental problem somewhere.
It is always a problem interfacing finishing works with M&E stages - particularly with something like ceiling works where there are at 3 sometime 4 stages.
Send me your email in a private message and maybe I can get a better understanding.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
23 years
Member for23 years
Submitted by Hemanth Kumar on Thu, 2011-01-13 09:54
Here is the exercise i made based on the existing plan and submitted
I have taken the planned MEP clearance dates , and compiled all the subsequent MEP clearance schedules issued by the main contractor , and took the originial duration of the last activity in a floor and added to the last (or proposed) clerance date to arrive at projected finish date .
At this stage everything depends on the detail of your programme - if you do not have each room or each level on the programme you will have to revert to a spreadsheet method.
Set up column B with every room on a row - next add the level in Column C - in column A use a unique reference that combines the room number and level (L15-R08)
In columnd D put the target date for access from the programme in the best detail that you have.
In the next sheet list all the access dates that have been allowed - cross reference them with the reference in Col A.
Back in the first sheet in column E set up an =vlookup(formula) that will extract the actual dates.
You now have a direct record of the difference between planned and actual acces dates for every room.
The delay days can then be impacted on the programme to generate a Time Impact Analysis - that is assuming that you have records of when you actually started work in each room.
If you really do not have any As Built data for each room - or at least each level then your best hope is to use the spreadsheet data to negotiate an EoT.
In any case start keeping detailed As Built Records NOW so that a trend can be established that may be correlated to earlier work.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
23 years
Member for23 years
Submitted by Hemanth Kumar on Wed, 2011-01-12 13:59
Absolutely, the contemporaries records are very important in determination the entitlement especially in such situation (the site still under progress), observation which follow by suitable records and methodology it is a valuable part of Delay analysis technique .
you are of course right that no contractor can enforce a delay analysis method on a sub-contractor.
The real test is wether a contractor can reject a sub-contractor's anaylsis that has used an incorrect method for the circumstances and the answer to that is of course Yes - and rightly so.
Impacted as Planned should not be used in a forensic environment as it will fail.
If the sub-contractor has no contermporary records as to progress then he will have learnt a very expensive lesson.
Simple answer to simple question, definitely NO main contractor cannot enforced the sub-contractor unless if that mentioned in the agreement or contract,
The course should be taken by sub-contractor is, having a logic analysis based on actual records there are four obtained techniques to illustrated the impact (the impact can be mitigate or immitigable) , now if we r expecting the worst scenario since the work under progress and main contractor refuse to give EOT now , u can ask for interim extension of time since he event still effecting
Best regards.
Mai
Member for
19 years 9 months
Member for19 years9 months
Submitted by khawaja uddin on Tue, 2011-01-11 07:37
The project is ongoing ....and what i have understand that Impacted as planned method is used under such conditions and that TIA can be performed once the project is completed and al data is known ..(please some one correct me if i am wrong ).
Considering above approach as correct ....the exercise done by Hemant is an Interim EOT and not the final EOT ..What Hemant (in my opinoin ) can do is to notify the same to the contractor that TIA can be done upon the completion of the project and try to collect the actual data as far a possible ...
Having said that ,,Mike do you belive that ,the contractor is justified in Rejecting the claim straight away at this point in time ? and without asking further particulars?
The first line of defence against a sub-contractors claim for an EoT is to reject the submitted method.
Sreejish response is correct up to a point but since you are about 60% through the sub-contract works a more appropriate method would be a combination of:
1. Time Impact Analysis up to 1st 60%
2. Impacted as planned for the last 40%
The contractor is correct to be suspicious of a wholly impacted as planned analysis because it is entirely theoretical.
You say that there is no As Built data but there must be some sort of records even if it is only the interim payments.
You do not say what type of work the sub-contract is but whatever the work there are indicators in the records of progress such as:
Concrete cube test results.
Excavation disposal tickets.
Delivery notes of key materials.
Hand over - Inspection sheets.
Key labour - supervisor time sheets.
Are there no site diaries or photographs?
If there are truly no as built records at all then I would support the contractor in rejecting the EoT claim as it is currently being presented.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
19 years 11 months
Member for20 years
Submitted by Sreejish Vishnu on Mon, 2011-01-10 12:23
Nothing can be imposed as far as it is not specified in your subcontract agreement documents with the main contractor. It is upto the main contractor to perform analysis on their own as they wish. But your document could not be rejected on that basis.
Further, in your situation, the works are still ongoing (so you have to do a prospective analysis) and you do not have proper as built records (which makes it very difficult to perform TIA).
Member for
23 yearsThe Contract is based
The Contract is based on
FIDIC CONDITIONS OF SUBCONTRACT FOR WORKS OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION 1994 ©
If they(main contractor ) insist for a specific method can we claim charges for that??
Member for
23 yearsThanks Sreejish & Rafael for
Thanks Sreejish & Rafael for insights
Member for
23 yearsGood point mike , but as you
Good point mike , but as you know in construction that seldom happens
and reality is sub contractor will start whenever one room is available and not wait for entire floor to be cleared
Member for
19 years 11 monthsHi Hemanth, From the details
Hi Hemanth,
From the details you have given regarding the 'as planned' programme, i think it contains only a very basic level of detail. So if you apply impacted as planned it may produce unrealistic or inflated results. Based on the available programme i think what you could do is only to provide as plannned against as built comparison (as suggested by mike in one of the earlier posts). and then try to present your case as best as you can. It may not be accepted by the Contractor.But end of the day in such situations all these issues get settled based on what commercial bargain you intend to make with the main contractor. If your intention is only to avoid LD's (only EOT) it may not be difficult. But at some point you may need to make it explicit to the main contractor. again here i am assuming that generally in such situations the main contractor will have many other delay events (MC'c culpable delays or MC's excusable delays). So your subcontract work alone would not be creating a critical end delay to the project.
But if you intend to claim for prolongation expenses you will have to make a forensic analysis (as said by rafael) without which the MC may not accept it. Such an effort will be of any use only if you do not have any major concurrent delays.
Having worked in a similar situation, many of the personnel still do not appreciate when you say that you only intend to claim for EOT (without claiming for prolongation cost). For many in the industry, an EOT still mean eligiblity for prolongation. ie: once an EOT is granted, there is no further discussion about concurrent delays. You may need to make it clear first. Probably to your own management first.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsThat there was no schedule at
That there was no schedule at all or that it is faulty shall not prevent you from presenting and proving your claim. Of course will make it harder to substantiate but not impossible.
If the Schedule is faulty then the only way to prove cause and effect is to build a forensic (after the facts) schedule. Here a forensic analyst would be invaluable.
The contractual responsibility for scheduling the job is on the General Contractor not on the Subcontractor, the responsibility of the Subcontractor is to cooperate. If in order for you to make up for what is his responsibility then you shall be able to claim for the additional burden imposed upon you. I am not saying it is going to be easy for the Contractor to accept this but you shall try to make him realize he is imposing upon you some extra burden.
Maybe the fact that he is not providing you with a clear schedule and now you have to make it up can provide you with the option to interpret the schedule in any reasonable way for you, similar to the interpretation of a non clear clause of a contract, to be interpreted in any reasonable way the one who did not wrote the contract interprets the clause.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Hemanth Regarding
Hi Hemanth
Regarding clearance dates for whole floors it all depends on the level of detail in the Contract Programme.
Since the Contract Programme milestone for tiling clearance is 1 per floor - and that milestone is a direct link to start tiling with no Lead / Lags (plus or minus) then the original intention was that tiling should start on the whole floor when clearance is given.
The logical inference from this is that the last room clearance is the date to start tiling on the whole floor.
If you are now being instructed to work room by room instead of the whole floor then you are working to a disrupted work pattern and extra time and costs would be claimable.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
23 yearsThanks All , and regarding
Thanks All , and regarding Rafael's question : No i was not involved in creation of sub contractor schedule
and the schedule is not resourced one, In a floor just one bar for one activity preceided by a MEP clearance milestone
-----
and that milestone is periodically updated with an actual date and % complete by a inexperienced planner !
what is the workaround ,when in original plan only one clearance milestone is considered for a common actvity in an entire floor (say Tiling ) and real onsite clearance for tiling for 30 different rooms in a floor is given in 30 different dates?
can we introduce an FF link to MEP milestone and Tiling bar (FF+ lag , Lag days = duration required to complete one room tiling )
Member for
21 years 8 monthsHemanth,Unless you have
Hemanth,
Unless you have unlimited resources available at the jobsite, say hundreds of thousands men, cranes, equipment then your schedules in order to be realistic must consider the limitation.
Perhaps the original schedule if done properly accounted for certain level of resources but the delay caused a depletion of resources further delaying the start of some activities or perhaps requiring a redistribution of available resources that increased the time to perform each task.
I believe the contractor shall supply you with an electronic copy of the official schedule if he is to insist you use TIA otherwise it is impossible. With this copy, you can perform the required resource leveling to validate initial and schedule updates.
1. Did you ever was involved into the preparation of the official schedule?
2. Did the scheduler asked you about resource loading and availability of resources?
3. Was resource leveling done using good scheduling practice? Specifically I am referring to the use of soft-logic as a substitute to resource leveling, considered by most protocols a bad practice to the extent some of our specifications prohibit the use of soft logic.
4. Did you ever was asked to review the logic of the schedule?
Contractual conditions between Contractor and Subcontractor usually require subcontractors to cooperate with the schedule of activities. If the General Contractor did not provided the necessary conditions for this to occur then he prevented you to cooperate, he is preventing you from submitting a responsible analysis. I believe that for the same reason you are required to cooperate with the scheduling of the job the General Contractor is responsible to cooperate with your scheduling.
In the absence of such electronic copy you can copy the resource requirement on your spreadsheets for initial schedule and the updates, you will not be able to resource level but will be able to see if the schedules are feasible. Take no short cuts here, maybe a Day Timescale will be needed as to properly show changes in resource demand.
Good luck,
Rafael
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Hemanth You seem to be in
Hi Hemanth
You seem to be in a situation where a simple As Built v As Planned method of analysis is the best way forward.
This method works well in a sub-contract situation where the sub-con trade is sandwiched between others - but you do need As Built data to make it work.
I am not sure what software you are using and I can't read the legend but it seems as though the black milestones are coming down the building while the red ones are going up.
Unless there is a very good reason to change the sequence I would say there is a fundamental problem somewhere.
It is always a problem interfacing finishing works with M&E stages - particularly with something like ceiling works where there are at 3 sometime 4 stages.
Send me your email in a private message and maybe I can get a better understanding.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
23 yearswysiwyg_imageupload::Thanks
Here is the exercise i made based on the existing plan and submitted
I have taken the planned MEP clearance dates , and compiled all the subsequent MEP clearance schedules issued by the main contractor , and took the originial duration of the last activity in a floor and added to the last (or proposed) clerance date to arrive at projected finish date .
Comments please
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Hemanth At this stage
Hi Hemanth
At this stage everything depends on the detail of your programme - if you do not have each room or each level on the programme you will have to revert to a spreadsheet method.
Set up column B with every room on a row - next add the level in Column C - in column A use a unique reference that combines the room number and level (L15-R08)
In columnd D put the target date for access from the programme in the best detail that you have.
In the next sheet list all the access dates that have been allowed - cross reference them with the reference in Col A.
Back in the first sheet in column E set up an =vlookup(formula) that will extract the actual dates.
You now have a direct record of the difference between planned and actual acces dates for every room.
The delay days can then be impacted on the programme to generate a Time Impact Analysis - that is assuming that you have records of when you actually started work in each room.
If you really do not have any As Built data for each room - or at least each level then your best hope is to use the spreadsheet data to negotiate an EoT.
In any case start keeping detailed As Built Records NOW so that a trend can be established that may be correlated to earlier work.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
23 yearsThank you all for the
Thank you all for the valuable comments ,
Yes contractor learned a lesson ,
now coming to delays , every day threre is a minimum of 30 delay events
access not clear for this activity in room "x" ( 30 Rooms In A Floor , total 10 Clearances in a room , 20 Floors )
we have clearance documentations , but dont know how to proceed with this massive amount of data ??
Member for
15 years 8 monthsdear : Absolutely, the
dear :
Absolutely, the contemporaries records are very important in determination the entitlement especially in such situation (the site still under progress), observation which follow by suitable records and methodology it is a valuable part of Delay analysis technique .
best regards
Mai
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Mai you are of course
Hi Mai
you are of course right that no contractor can enforce a delay analysis method on a sub-contractor.
The real test is wether a contractor can reject a sub-contractor's anaylsis that has used an incorrect method for the circumstances and the answer to that is of course Yes - and rightly so.
Impacted as Planned should not be used in a forensic environment as it will fail.
If the sub-contractor has no contermporary records as to progress then he will have learnt a very expensive lesson.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
15 years 8 monthsHi: Simple answer to simple
Hi:
Simple answer to simple question, definitely NO main contractor cannot enforced the sub-contractor unless if that mentioned in the agreement or contract,
The course should be taken by sub-contractor is, having a logic analysis based on actual records there are four obtained techniques to illustrated the impact (the impact can be mitigate or immitigable) , now if we r expecting the worst scenario since the work under progress and main contractor refuse to give EOT now , u can ask for interim extension of time since he event still effecting
Best regards.
Mai
Member for
19 years 9 monthsHi All The project is ongoing
Hi All
The project is ongoing ....and what i have understand that Impacted as planned method is used under such conditions and that TIA can be performed once the project is completed and al data is known ..(please some one correct me if i am wrong ).
Considering above approach as correct ....the exercise done by Hemant is an Interim EOT and not the final EOT ..What Hemant (in my opinoin ) can do is to notify the same to the contractor that TIA can be done upon the completion of the project and try to collect the actual data as far a possible ...
Having said that ,,Mike do you belive that ,the contractor is justified in Rejecting the claim straight away at this point in time ? and without asking further particulars?
Regards
Khawaja
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Hemanth The first line of
Hi Hemanth
The first line of defence against a sub-contractors claim for an EoT is to reject the submitted method.
Sreejish response is correct up to a point but since you are about 60% through the sub-contract works a more appropriate method would be a combination of:
1. Time Impact Analysis up to 1st 60%
2. Impacted as planned for the last 40%
The contractor is correct to be suspicious of a wholly impacted as planned analysis because it is entirely theoretical.
You say that there is no As Built data but there must be some sort of records even if it is only the interim payments.
You do not say what type of work the sub-contract is but whatever the work there are indicators in the records of progress such as:
Concrete cube test results.
Excavation disposal tickets.
Delivery notes of key materials.
Hand over - Inspection sheets.
Key labour - supervisor time sheets.
Are there no site diaries or photographs?
If there are truly no as built records at all then I would support the contractor in rejecting the EoT claim as it is currently being presented.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
19 years 11 monthsHi Hemanth, Nothing can be
Hi Hemanth,
Nothing can be imposed as far as it is not specified in your subcontract agreement documents with the main contractor. It is upto the main contractor to perform analysis on their own as they wish. But your document could not be rejected on that basis.
Further, in your situation, the works are still ongoing (so you have to do a prospective analysis) and you do not have proper as built records (which makes it very difficult to perform TIA).