This is beauty of this forum that new and inexperienced planners like me can have the fruits of the experience and hardship of the seniors, thanx to Planning Planet team.
Regarding the As Built it depends on who has the most accurate records.
You can easily defend a Time Impact analysis by showing that the contractor's As Built data is wrong.
The other defence is to destroy his baseline programme by pointing out the shortcomings.
Remember that it is easire to defend an incoming claim than to prosecute one.
However any rejection has to be based on sound reason and logic or you may end up with a time at large situation.
A lot depends on the arbitrator but in a formal hearing both sides will promote their case and the arbitrator will decide what is a just and reasonable award.
My understand of Impact as plan is an approved method but least recommend compaed to the other 3.
I heard that it also depend on the arbitartor, some arbitrator does not take into concurrent delay, it require both parties to make independent review before they make report. Nonetheless, it should still be done on as built, not impact as plan.
WE do not agree with contractor as built and building our own as built, I feel that is making things complicated. But do you feel that appropiate, as we are analysising from 2 different as built.
I have a contractor who is applying EOT based on Impact-As -Plan.
The project is already about 1 year since commencement. The IAP analysis is very bias and I totally disagree with the way it is perform on the baseline, it does not take into consideration of any as built information.
I am trying to find reason to refute this claim.
Kindly assist on common reason to refute IAP claim.
I am thinking that the programme does not display good scheduling technqiue, excessive use of SS logic. And the procurement lead time is exaggerated. It is not detail and links are too messy.
In additional contractor shows no intention of mitigation and with no due diligence.
I believe it is more appropiate to use äs-built analysis, and believe the contractor avoid using it as they know an as built analysis will weaken their entitlement claim.
The Engineer is doing what Engineers' always do - try to avoid issuing an eoT award by way of lack of formal notice.
The tactic rarely succeeds in court particularly when everyone knows what the delay is and the current cause and effect..
You need to draft a letter of notice using such words as - "your failure to issue a reasonable extension of time is a clear Act of Prevention which - if not remedied soon - will place time at large on the Contract"
You can also consider issuing a notice of Arbitration.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsDear Mr. Mike Testro,This is
Dear Mr. Mike Testro,
This is beauty of this forum that new and inexperienced planners like me can have the fruits of the experience and hardship of the seniors, thanx to Planning Planet team.
Cheers.
Tanveer
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Mervyline Only if you are
Hi Mervyline
Only if you are using asta Powerproject.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
16 years 5 monthsHi Mike, Thank you! For
Hi Mike,
Thank you!
For update, they instructed me to revise the EOT and then go ahead as per instruction in Clause 20.1 fidic 1999.
Is there any chance for me to send you my submission of EOT rev.0?????.......;)
Regards,
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi CH Regarding the As Built
Hi CH
Regarding the As Built it depends on who has the most accurate records.
You can easily defend a Time Impact analysis by showing that the contractor's As Built data is wrong.
The other defence is to destroy his baseline programme by pointing out the shortcomings.
Remember that it is easire to defend an incoming claim than to prosecute one.
However any rejection has to be based on sound reason and logic or you may end up with a time at large situation.
A lot depends on the arbitrator but in a formal hearing both sides will promote their case and the arbitrator will decide what is a just and reasonable award.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
15 years 9 monthsThanks Mike, Correct me if I
Thanks Mike,
Correct me if I am wrong
My understand of Impact as plan is an approved method but least recommend compaed to the other 3.
I heard that it also depend on the arbitartor, some arbitrator does not take into concurrent delay, it require both parties to make independent review before they make report. Nonetheless, it should still be done on as built, not impact as plan.
WE do not agree with contractor as built and building our own as built, I feel that is making things complicated. But do you feel that appropiate, as we are analysising from 2 different as built.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi CH An Impacted as Planned
Hi CH
An Impacted as Planned analysis should not be used for a forensic situation - so it can be rejected on that basis alone.
Other reasons for rejection include:
1. It is completeley theoretical and does not reflect the situation on the site.
2. It does not compare to the As Built data that you have.
3. It does not take into account concurrent contractors delays.
One practical excercise that you can do is carry out the same analysis on the same programme but with all the contractor's delays impacted.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
15 years 9 monthsHi, I have a contractor who
Hi,
I have a contractor who is applying EOT based on Impact-As -Plan.
The project is already about 1 year since commencement. The IAP analysis is very bias and I totally disagree with the way it is perform on the baseline, it does not take into consideration of any as built information.
I am trying to find reason to refute this claim.
Kindly assist on common reason to refute IAP claim.
I am thinking that the programme does not display good scheduling technqiue, excessive use of SS logic. And the procurement lead time is exaggerated. It is not detail and links are too messy.
In additional contractor shows no intention of mitigation and with no due diligence.
I believe it is more appropiate to use äs-built analysis, and believe the contractor avoid using it as they know an as built analysis will weaken their entitlement claim.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Mervilene The Engineer is
Hi Mervilene
The Engineer is doing what Engineers' always do - try to avoid issuing an eoT award by way of lack of formal notice.
The tactic rarely succeeds in court particularly when everyone knows what the delay is and the current cause and effect..
You need to draft a letter of notice using such words as - "your failure to issue a reasonable extension of time is a clear Act of Prevention which - if not remedied soon - will place time at large on the Contract"
You can also consider issuing a notice of Arbitration.
Best regards
Mike Testro