EOT Planning Unit

Puneet,



Not necesarily, but I would guess there’s either one or two other clauses dealing with an assessment at the completion date and possibly one dealing with a final assessment at some point after completion. For another guess, both use similar wording and are Cl’s 44(4) and (5).

Puneet,



You have added one critically important point - the analysis is being done retrospectively.



The analysis should be carried out (retrospectively or prospectively) in accordance with the contract but this is especially relevant when the analysis is retrospective.



The wording of your EoT clauses will be all important, particularly any interim clause EoT assessment.



Your entitlement to an EoT will have accrued at some point during the contract (assuming your’e entitled to one!) and it could be that the state of the Engineers knowledge at the time your entitlement accrued is what is relevant and what he should be basing his assessment on, not what he knows now.

Puneet



I think point 3 is a very good support for you in the claim, i think u are entitled for an additional cost and also for an EOT.

u will do more precautions to work in the monsoon season rather than working in the dry season.

Also it is logic for me to have more time doing the required work due to this weather conditions thus affecting the completion date of the project.



I do not figure out how can the engineer avoid this in judging the EOT.

Richard,



I also think Puneet said at the beginning of this thread that the programme was an actual contract document, if so there’s no doubt that the Engineers alterations constitute variations.

Richard,



Yep, totally agree - it would appear he’s trying to be clever in order to award the minimum EoT but I think his cleverness might come back to bite him.

Richard,



They might even have a claim for full prolongation and an EoT, just depends on the definition on completion. Which would be nicely ironic, the Engineer reduces the EoT by excluding an activity and then has to give an EoT for his instruction to exclude the activity!

Puneet,



I generally agree with your thoughts - however, the changes made by the Engineer, should he wish to stick to them, will almost certainly amount to a instructed variation entitling you to claim for them, eg, additional costs of carrying out works in the monsoon season. They may even amount to an instruction to accelerate.



Have a think about the changes the Engineers made in this context.

Hi Puneet,

Is this working 24 hours double shift in your contract.

Just want to know....cause its intresting have case like this.

Puneet,



1. If he’s changing the shift pattern such that the original baseline activity durations are reduced then we’re back to the argument that the overall duration of the baseline activities were based on the shift patterns actually worked rather than on the calendar settings of the software. He shouldn’t be altering any baseline activity duartions unless it is a known fact to him that the baseline durations were based on say an 8hr day and you actually chose to work a 12hr day. That said, even if it that is the case, the productivity obtained between an 8hr and 12hr working day is not a direct relationship and cannot be simply interchanged without consideration of the extra hours worked in terms of it’s affect on the workforce - fatigue, etc.



2. It isn’t unreasonable for him to take account of the as built logic, ie reflect the situation as it actually is on site at the time of making his assesment. His changes must follow the correct logic however and the result properly reflect the state of the site.



3. I would ask him to confirm in writing all changes made to the baseline logic/calendars but especially this one - or if you are aware of all the changes then confirm them to him in writing. Is the change is reasonable in the circumstances is the best answer I can give you without knowing more. It sounds doubtful to me unless he has a crystal ball to predict the monsoons.



4. Ask for his written instruction (or confirm to him) to do this item of work after mobilisation and confirm that it will not affect the issue of the completion certificate prior to this work being started (if that’s the case) - or that he want’s you to do the work in the defects correction period. Then when he’s given the instruction claim prolongation/EoT for the instruction. Can’t really be precise on this one without knowing more about the programme but I hope you have the idea - the jist of the answer is that if he choses to change the logic and dictate your sequence of work then there’s probably a way to make him pay for it!!!!!!!!!!

Karim,



I agree it does beg the question of why two different types of software are being used - it isn’t always stated in the contract what to use and I guess as P3 and Suretrak are compatible as such, maybe the Engineer thinks he’s saving some money.



Irrespective of the software, my suspicion is the Engineer thinks doing what he’s doing will reduce the EoT duration.

how come the contractor and the engineer uses 2 software for planning and monitoring the same schedule?, u have to revert to the contract and use the software which is stated their in the first place.



after that u can go back to the APPROVED baseline and implement your CURRENT situations on it for an EOT (this may include change in calender for example work for more hours or delete some holidays).

Puneet,



Don’t know what conditions of contract you are working under but for a guess the wording that empowers the Engineer to give an EoT says something along the lines of "at the discetion of the Engineer...." or "in the opinion of..." or "as he sees fit...." ie, the Engineer can use his discetion in making the assessment as long as what he produces is a fair and reasonable assessment.



He would have to have a good reason for his chosen method of assessment and there’s nothing to stop you asking for an explanation of those reasons. If they are likely to prejudice the result then you can challenge his assesment as unfair and or unreasonable.

Puneet,



A good of example of how to complicate something simple!!!



There’s no reason why days / hours aren’t interchangable as long as they both end up representing the same thing and the two versions are consistent consistent.



Obvious to say, but the first thing to compare are the calendars used in both versions - especially the working day hours and or shift patterns. These should be the same whatever units you are working in.



The baseline programme calendars and working patterns should be used unless there is very good reason not to. eg you decided to change and work a 12hr rather than an 8hr working day - that said, and it is often the case, that a Contractor doesn’t use calendars in his programme that properly reflects the actual working hours. If this is the case you will have to argue that hours are inappropriate and that days should be used as the overall duration of activities was calculated for example a 12hr day rather than the 8hr default setting of the software.