It is such a situation as yours that engineers will not issue an EoT on an Impacted as Planned analysis until the as built situation becomes clear and I don't blame them. An EoT once awarded cannot be withdrawn.
Even if you did submit the claim earlier you would not have got an EoT on that basis.
I understand that I have to input the actual duration taken for the DD submission (25 days),instead of baseline duration (50 days), in the Impacted As Planned schedule, in order to identify the real EOT entitlement.
or I should have made the claim for EOT earlier, just after the late approval of Concept design by Client (for a prospective analysis). Now the DD final approval stage is almost completed, so it has became a forensic analysis.
Your statement " Where an impacted task has gone beyond its As Built Envelope then the baseline programme needs to be adjusted to reflect what actually happened" .
In this case, I think we are reducing our entitlement days by including the actually happened submission duration (for DD) in the Impacted As-Planned schedule.
For eg: the concept design was approved by Client taking additional 45 days. Starting from this late approval, the detailed design submission(50 days), DD approval (15 days) and Tender documents submittal (30 days) should remain intact for EOT claim, eventhough the actual detailed design submission happened in 25 days.
If we reduced the duration to 25 days for DD submission in the Impacted As Planned schedule, are we not loosing 25 days for the entitlement, as per the approved baseline logic and duration?
I am considering my entitlement, standing at the past (just after the late approval date of Concept Design).
Unless you agreed to a particular analysis method in the contract you are free to use any analysis mathod to support your claim.
The employer is equally free to use any method in rebuttal.
The Impacted as Planned method is universally recognised as a suitable method for impacting delays for work in progress when there can be no As Built data for future work.
The Collapsed As Built method is usually accepted for forensic analysis where there is no baseline programme to be impacted and very detailed As Built Records. Its use in two recent cases was rejected by the court so it is not viewed favourably in the UK.
In my opinion Collapsed As Built is not the best methods for early stage design delay.
Having said all that if you have accurate As Built data then your theoretical Impacted As Planned projection must be mitigated to comply with what actually happened.
This is similar to a Time Impact analysis but it does not need a full progress update to show what really happenned.
Where an impacted task has gone beyond its As Built Envelope then the baseline programme needs to be adjusted to reflect what actually happened.
In practice this means moving the extended task back to the As Built dates and fix it with a Must Start on or After constraint. Any upstream logic must be disabled - downstream logic retained - this removes the negative float problem.
With this in place an F9 will show the likely impacted delay of the project and fully support youe EoT entitlement.
Member for
17 years 4 monthsThanks Mike.... Best
Thanks Mike....
Best Regards
Kannan
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi KannanIt is such a
Hi Kannan
It is such a situation as yours that engineers will not issue an EoT on an Impacted as Planned analysis until the as built situation becomes clear and I don't blame them. An EoT once awarded cannot be withdrawn.
Even if you did submit the claim earlier you would not have got an EoT on that basis.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
17 years 4 monthsHi Mike,I understand that I
Hi Mike,
I understand that I have to input the actual duration taken for the DD submission (25 days),instead of baseline duration (50 days), in the Impacted As Planned schedule, in order to identify the real EOT entitlement.
or I should have made the claim for EOT earlier, just after the late approval of Concept design by Client (for a prospective analysis). Now the DD final approval stage is almost completed, so it has became a forensic analysis.
Am I correct?
Best Regards
Kannan
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi KannanAny theoretical
Hi Kannan
Any theoretical delay impact that does not comply with what actually happened will be rightly rejected.
When the SCL Protocol Rider 1 is published the use of an Impacted as Planned analysis in a forensic environment will be forbidden.
If you do not have sound as built data then you will not have a case.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
17 years 4 monthsHi Mike,Thanks for the
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the reply.
Your statement " Where an impacted task has gone beyond its As Built Envelope then the baseline programme needs to be adjusted to reflect what actually happened" .
In this case, I think we are reducing our entitlement days by including the actually happened submission duration (for DD) in the Impacted As-Planned schedule.
For eg: the concept design was approved by Client taking additional 45 days. Starting from this late approval, the detailed design submission(50 days), DD approval (15 days) and Tender documents submittal (30 days) should remain intact for EOT claim, eventhough the actual detailed design submission happened in 25 days.
If we reduced the duration to 25 days for DD submission in the Impacted As Planned schedule, are we not loosing 25 days for the entitlement, as per the approved baseline logic and duration?
I am considering my entitlement, standing at the past (just after the late approval date of Concept Design).
Regards
Kannan
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi KannanUnless you agreed to
Hi Kannan
Unless you agreed to a particular analysis method in the contract you are free to use any analysis mathod to support your claim.
The employer is equally free to use any method in rebuttal.
The Impacted as Planned method is universally recognised as a suitable method for impacting delays for work in progress when there can be no As Built data for future work.
The Collapsed As Built method is usually accepted for forensic analysis where there is no baseline programme to be impacted and very detailed As Built Records. Its use in two recent cases was rejected by the court so it is not viewed favourably in the UK.
In my opinion Collapsed As Built is not the best methods for early stage design delay.
Having said all that if you have accurate As Built data then your theoretical Impacted As Planned projection must be mitigated to comply with what actually happened.
This is similar to a Time Impact analysis but it does not need a full progress update to show what really happenned.
Where an impacted task has gone beyond its As Built Envelope then the baseline programme needs to be adjusted to reflect what actually happened.
In practice this means moving the extended task back to the As Built dates and fix it with a Must Start on or After constraint. Any upstream logic must be disabled - downstream logic retained - this removes the negative float problem.
With this in place an F9 will show the likely impacted delay of the project and fully support youe EoT entitlement.
Best regards
Mike T.
Member for
17 years 4 monthsHi All, Any thoughts from the
Hi All,
Any thoughts from the experts..
Regards