in my opinion, any condetions or requirement whatsoever metioed in any part of the contract documents and the contractor did not contested during the tender stage become part of the contractor's contractual obligation and in now way the contractor can refuse to comply with this requirements.
the cotractor has to arrage the progam and the actual constructio sequace to comply with the reqauired noyification for inspection 24 hours ahead of the date of the works (it is cotrolable ad possible with prorer management ad following up which is the part of the cotractor responsibilty .
i foud o contractual basis for the contractor to clam for EOT or attitionl cost due to the above
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Wed, 2010-12-01 15:03
it is not always what the contract says; The contract cannot be against the law, and in many jurisdictions the law is not only by legislation but by common law or interpretation by the courts. What happens is that unscrupulous owners at times knowingly write contract clauses that cannot be enforced but with the intention to make it hard to the other side, so the other side will be forced to issue a claim for a decision. That you missed some requirements does not relieves the owner of his contractual responsibilities.
If the inspection activities are not specifically required by the specifications to be explicit it do not means you can prove cause and effect. As a matter of fact I believe kind of stupid a specification with a requirement for all inspections be under a separate activity on the CPM Schedule, it is not necessary to prove cause and effect, the contractor as well as the owner can identify very easily those inspections that are critical, those inspections that interfere with a critical activity, it is simple, Owner's ignorance is no excuse.
To prepare your claim all you need is proof of the delay and costs associated if any. A simple TIA or Time Impact Analisys shall do it for the EOT or Extension of Time, the following reference might be of help.
Note that an EOT does not necessarily entitles you to monetary compensation, you still have to prove there was cost impact and that there was no concurrent delays on your part.
Concurrent delays by Owner and Contractor do not prevets the Contractor to claim for EOT but under concurrent delays the Contractor cannot claim for monetary compensation for the duration of the concurrent delays.
On a job, such clause usually will apply to hundreds of occurrences, like rain delay it is not necessary to be shown as an explicit activity. You can say you considered the time for inspections under the duration of your activities that the “extra” time was not. The owner cannot deny a valid claim just because he wanted the schedule to be his way, unless there are special instructions on the contract for this purpose, even in the presence of such conditions he cannot use it as an arbitrary excuse to justify his delays.
Needless to say if there is a contractual requirement to show as an activity every inspection request and it was not included I would submit a revised schedule showing these, of course I would prefer not to show all such inspection requests if not required and only add them as needed for my TIA. Hundreds or thousands of such request for inspection would be insane, a ridiculous requirement that at times do happen.
In order for it to be considered a delay two things must happen, first you requested the inspection 24 hours before it could be considered a delay and it must affect the delivery of the job. If it does not affect the job delivery but delays some of your activities and this has a cost impact then you can still place a claim for disruption.
Say you asked for inspection one day late and it was done within 24 hours, then you cannot place a claim.
Say you asked for inspection on time and it was performed after 48 hours but it did not affected the job delivery then you cannot place a delay claim but still can claim for disruption.
Say you asked for inspection on time and it was performed after 30 hours of request, 6 hours late. That the activity is critical and was delayed two weeks because it was to be performed using a special equipment you rented ahead of time for this purposes but you had to return it as you had only 8 hours for its use. Say it will not be available again for two weeks. Then you can claim for ETO of two weeks and whatever cost impact it had in direct costs and general overhead.
Remember as in any claim documentation is critical. It would help in special cases to warn the Owner ahead of time about how critical timely execution of the inspection is.
If you use an updated schedule to the instance just before the delay event to perform your TIA you can either split your impacted activity an insert your delay activity or you can use calendars, similar to a common method used for rain delays. If you use last monthly update to perform your TIA then the calendar method would be easier to apply. Usually if using the calendars method you will have to create a special calendar to be applied only to impacted activities.
I doubt if your programme is sufficiently detailed (down to level 4/5) to show the individual inspection notice period for each concrete pour.
It will therefore be difficult to do a direct Impact of any time over the 24 hours that you wait for the inspection.
You do have a valid claim heading but showing direct cause and effect without the detail will be impossible.
If you are on level 3 where the concrete foundation tasks are in one bar for all activities ie Excavate > Blinding > Forms > Rebar > Pour > Strike > Backfill etc - then you may be able to estimate where the 24 inspection period would be along the bar.
If you can do this then you should first save the file in a new name and then split the bar at the estimated date and then add an activity in the split that represents the number of days that you waited for the inspection.
Give the waiting time a bright red colour and reschedule the programme.
The cumulative effect may well cause a delay on the ctritical path.
If your software does not allow the task to be split then you can try setting up different calendars for each work stoppage but you will need as many calendars as there are affected tasks and it will be a cumbersome process.
This is the reason why I always prepare a bottom up programme to level 4 at the beginning.
Member for
19 years 2 monthsdear all, in my opinion, any
dear all,
in my opinion, any condetions or requirement whatsoever metioed in any part of the contract documents and the contractor did not contested during the tender stage become part of the contractor's contractual obligation and in now way the contractor can refuse to comply with this requirements.
the cotractor has to arrage the progam and the actual constructio sequace to comply with the reqauired noyification for inspection 24 hours ahead of the date of the works (it is cotrolable ad possible with prorer management ad following up which is the part of the cotractor responsibilty .
i foud o contractual basis for the contractor to clam for EOT or attitionl cost due to the above
Member for
21 years 8 monthsit is not always what the
it is not always what the contract says; The contract cannot be against the law, and in many jurisdictions the law is not only by legislation but by common law or interpretation by the courts. What happens is that unscrupulous owners at times knowingly write contract clauses that cannot be enforced but with the intention to make it hard to the other side, so the other side will be forced to issue a claim for a decision. That you missed some requirements does not relieves the owner of his contractual responsibilities.
If the inspection activities are not specifically required by the specifications to be explicit it do not means you can prove cause and effect. As a matter of fact I believe kind of stupid a specification with a requirement for all inspections be under a separate activity on the CPM Schedule, it is not necessary to prove cause and effect, the contractor as well as the owner can identify very easily those inspections that are critical, those inspections that interfere with a critical activity, it is simple, Owner's ignorance is no excuse.
To prepare your claim all you need is proof of the delay and costs associated if any. A simple TIA or Time Impact Analisys shall do it for the EOT or Extension of Time, the following reference might be of help.
http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/Time_Impact_Analysis.pdf
Note that an EOT does not necessarily entitles you to monetary compensation, you still have to prove there was cost impact and that there was no concurrent delays on your part.
Concurrent delays by Owner and Contractor do not prevets the Contractor to claim for EOT but under concurrent delays the Contractor cannot claim for monetary compensation for the duration of the concurrent delays.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
15 yearsRafael you say i can refuse
Rafael
you say i can refuse some specification in the contract can you give me reference based on it to prepare the claim
Member for
21 years 8 monthsJiahd,On a job, such clause
Jiahd,
On a job, such clause usually will apply to hundreds of occurrences, like rain delay it is not necessary to be shown as an explicit activity. You can say you considered the time for inspections under the duration of your activities that the “extra” time was not. The owner cannot deny a valid claim just because he wanted the schedule to be his way, unless there are special instructions on the contract for this purpose, even in the presence of such conditions he cannot use it as an arbitrary excuse to justify his delays.
Needless to say if there is a contractual requirement to show as an activity every inspection request and it was not included I would submit a revised schedule showing these, of course I would prefer not to show all such inspection requests if not required and only add them as needed for my TIA. Hundreds or thousands of such request for inspection would be insane, a ridiculous requirement that at times do happen.
In order for it to be considered a delay two things must happen, first you requested the inspection 24 hours before it could be considered a delay and it must affect the delivery of the job. If it does not affect the job delivery but delays some of your activities and this has a cost impact then you can still place a claim for disruption.
Say you asked for inspection one day late and it was done within 24 hours, then you cannot place a claim.
Say you asked for inspection on time and it was performed after 48 hours but it did not affected the job delivery then you cannot place a delay claim but still can claim for disruption.
Say you asked for inspection on time and it was performed after 30 hours of request, 6 hours late. That the activity is critical and was delayed two weeks because it was to be performed using a special equipment you rented ahead of time for this purposes but you had to return it as you had only 8 hours for its use. Say it will not be available again for two weeks. Then you can claim for ETO of two weeks and whatever cost impact it had in direct costs and general overhead.
Remember as in any claim documentation is critical. It would help in special cases to warn the Owner ahead of time about how critical timely execution of the inspection is.
If you use an updated schedule to the instance just before the delay event to perform your TIA you can either split your impacted activity an insert your delay activity or you can use calendars, similar to a common method used for rain delays. If you use last monthly update to perform your TIA then the calendar method would be easier to apply. Usually if using the calendars method you will have to create a special calendar to be applied only to impacted activities.
Regards,
Rafael
Member for
15 yearscan they replay to us "this
can they replay to us "this condition is in the contract and you should care about it when you put your schedule" ??
jihad
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Jiahd I doubt if your
Hi Jiahd
I doubt if your programme is sufficiently detailed (down to level 4/5) to show the individual inspection notice period for each concrete pour.
It will therefore be difficult to do a direct Impact of any time over the 24 hours that you wait for the inspection.
You do have a valid claim heading but showing direct cause and effect without the detail will be impossible.
If you are on level 3 where the concrete foundation tasks are in one bar for all activities ie Excavate > Blinding > Forms > Rebar > Pour > Strike > Backfill etc - then you may be able to estimate where the 24 inspection period would be along the bar.
If you can do this then you should first save the file in a new name and then split the bar at the estimated date and then add an activity in the split that represents the number of days that you waited for the inspection.
Give the waiting time a bright red colour and reschedule the programme.
The cumulative effect may well cause a delay on the ctritical path.
If your software does not allow the task to be split then you can try setting up different calendars for each work stoppage but you will need as many calendars as there are affected tasks and it will be a cumbersome process.
This is the reason why I always prepare a bottom up programme to level 4 at the beginning.
Best regards
Mike Testro