Yes, we are nominated Sub-contractor and the contract binds with access dates for MEP installation in each floor. Based on this access dates; we prepared and submitted MEP installation programme and Civil conrtactor approved and all other parties agreed.
It is purely a delay from civil contractor (Main contractor). We are nominated MEP contractor; though in terms of sub-contractor under main contract.
As per contract; we are submitting detailed delay particulars in weekly basis. Till now; they were not issued an EOT in black and white. Moreover they issued a revised access date as said before.
Thank you for your feedback and expecting more after case study.
On a practical level a lot depends on whether the delays to the Civil Contractor can be passed up to the Employer or are they wholly the Contractor's problem.
If the former thenit is best to collaborate and share the gains.
If not then you will have a fight with the contractor.
On the face of what you describe you have a sound case - not just for EoT but prolongation costs and disruption.
You mention FIDIC - are you engaged on the sub-contract form?
Best regards
Mike T.
PS I am moving your thread to the Forensic topic - you will get a better response.
Member for
11 years 7 months
Member for11 years7 months
Submitted by anilvarghese on Thu, 2016-02-11 07:43
Contractual Baseline governs until a revision is mutually agreed between MEP and whoever contracted him, maybe a General Contractor, maybe a Contract Project Manager if a prime contractor and not a subcontractor.
In any case the conditions are substantially different and there is a possibility this requires and increase in time and cost.
It takes a woman 9 months to bear a child, nine women cannot bear a child in a month.
Of course the contract shall provide for what to do in such circumstances, but in case of a substantial change a contractor or subcontractor can reject a one sided alternative such as a Change Directive.
It is better if the parts get together and agree for a change in schedule, EOT and cost adjustments if applicable, rather than litigation.
If someone else was late then this is the party that shall be assigned accountability. To use the MEP contractor as a scapegoat is wrong.
Member for
11 years 7 months
Member for11 years7 months
Submitted by anilvarghese on Wed, 2016-02-10 11:45
Member for
11 years 7 monthsThank you Mr. Mike
Thank you Mr. Mike
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi AnilIf your access dates
Hi Anil
If your access dates are bound into the Sub Contract then any change imposed by the contractor is a breach of contract.
You are not in an EoT situation at all.
The contractor is bound to pay for all loss and expence caused by his breach of contract - it is as simple as that.
Best regards
Mike T.
Member for
11 years 7 monthsThank you Mr. Mike;Yes, we
Thank you Mr. Mike;
Yes, we are nominated Sub-contractor and the contract binds with access dates for MEP installation in each floor. Based on this access dates; we prepared and submitted MEP installation programme and Civil conrtactor approved and all other parties agreed.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi AnilThings to consider.1.
Hi Anil
Things to consider.
1. Are you a nominated sub contractor under the FiDIC conditions or an "instructed" "named" sub contractor?
If the former then you are in a much stronger position because the Employer will pay your claim and deduct the money from the Contractor.
2. Is your baseline programme a binding sub contract document?
If yes then the Contractor is in breach of contract and different rules apply.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
11 years 7 monthsThank you Dear Mike.It is
Thank you Dear Mike.
It is purely a delay from civil contractor (Main contractor). We are nominated MEP contractor; though in terms of sub-contractor under main contract.
As per contract; we are submitting detailed delay particulars in weekly basis. Till now; they were not issued an EOT in black and white. Moreover they issued a revised access date as said before.
Thank you for your feedback and expecting more after case study.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi AnilOn a practical level a
Hi Anil
On a practical level a lot depends on whether the delays to the Civil Contractor can be passed up to the Employer or are they wholly the Contractor's problem.
If the former thenit is best to collaborate and share the gains.
If not then you will have a fight with the contractor.
On the face of what you describe you have a sound case - not just for EoT but prolongation costs and disruption.
You mention FIDIC - are you engaged on the sub-contract form?
Best regards
Mike T.
PS I am moving your thread to the Forensic topic - you will get a better response.
Member for
11 years 7 monthsThank you for the advice.
Thank you for the advice.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsContractual Baseline governs
Contractual Baseline governs until a revision is mutually agreed between MEP and whoever contracted him, maybe a General Contractor, maybe a Contract Project Manager if a prime contractor and not a subcontractor.
In any case the conditions are substantially different and there is a possibility this requires and increase in time and cost.
It takes a woman 9 months to bear a child, nine women cannot bear a child in a month.
Of course the contract shall provide for what to do in such circumstances, but in case of a substantial change a contractor or subcontractor can reject a one sided alternative such as a Change Directive.
It is better if the parts get together and agree for a change in schedule, EOT and cost adjustments if applicable, rather than litigation.
If someone else was late then this is the party that shall be assigned accountability. To use the MEP contractor as a scapegoat is wrong.
Member for
11 years 7 monthsPlease give some advise.
Please give some advise. Please.