Time Impact Analysis & Case Law
Forum Sponsor
Top Posters
Julian Pegg
1 posts
Peter Nagy
2 posts
Raymund de Laza
17 posts
Syed_Asad
0 posts
Tony Greyvenstein
0 posts
Ahmed Al-Jubouri
13 posts
Umar Alvi
3 posts
Sibusiso Mahlalela
0 posts
Michael Samanyayi
3 posts
Simon Gumede
0 posts
A.F
The SCL Protocol does recognise this - 1.4.5 "The Employer Risk Event should be analysed first."
At a given update, by impacting the Employer event before the Contractor event, the effect of the Employer event will be seen and not masked by a Contractor delay - the result will therefore concur with Malmaison.
But it also says in 1.4.7 "Analyses should be carried out for each event separately and strictly in the sequence in which they arose..." (repeated elsewhere in the Protocol)
They are actually both right, but admittedly it could be clearer.
If the above is not done (Employer first), then you would have to inspect the results and manually find those events that might entitle the Contractor to a further EoT.