Which program is relevant to the contract between the main contractor and sub contractor?
I assume if the usual scenario is applicable, the sub contract ties the sub contractor to the main contract programme, but as the sub contractor appears to have produced his own unique programme, may be not in this case!
The benfit of using the main contractors programme is - as I said before - that it is the only place where the two sets of information exist in one programme.
By using the Windows method - which is now outmoded in the UK - you are increasing your workload by a factor equal to the number of slots you adopt.
Fine if you are being paid for by the hour but you will get the same result as doing it all at once.
Remember that there is no logic in the As Built programme so why split it up?
Actually I am implementing the windows technique as defined under the SCL delay and disruption protocol using the MIP 3.3 of the AACEI Forensic Analysis recomended practice(Observational / Dynamic / Contemporaneous As-Is). This is why I am using the as-built vs as-planned in periodic intervals (windows) but that of the Contractor instead of the Subcontractors. I am not inserting any new fragents.
In this way, I am able to check the concurrecny in its time of happening, instead of looiking at the whole as-built vs as-planned in one shot.
Moreover, the Subcontractors schedule was never consented. Maybe this is another reason in defending the subs claim. SO I am obliged to use the Contractors programme.
However, and despite this very fruitful conversation we are having, I believe that we shifted from the question that I raised before :).
My question is that what are the advantages of using contractors programme instead of subcontractors schedule irrespective of my case and irrespective of the technique used.
Definitly, we are reaching somewhere in this debate, but can this be generalized to be used in each and every case. I guess not.
Each case must be treated on a case by case basis.
Thank you
Regards;
H. Itani
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Sat, 2009-05-09 12:52
You need to work on a baseline programme that integrates the sub-contractors work with the other packages.
This would normally be the Main Contractors baseline programme.
The sub-contractors programme would normally be extracted from the Main Contractors programme and the difficulties start if the Sub-Contract baseline prgramme does not coincide with the main Contract Baseline.
In the UK there are four recognised methods of delay analysis.
1. As Built v As Planned which is only suitable for sub-contractor claims where other trades are delaying access.
You are quite right in poiting out that this method does not adequately demonstrate concurrency.
2. Imapcted as Planned which is the only method that can be used used when work is in progress. It relies on a detailed bottom up baseline programme which from my experience is a rare event.
3. Time Impact analysis which compares the impact of events on the As Built situation. This is the most complex but the most reliable method.
4. As Built But For which endeavours to put a critical pth in the As Built programme and then knock out the delay events from finish to start. This method has been discredited since the Shepherd v City Inns case.
Your use of the term Windows has many definitions in different countries and different analysts.
To my mind it is the same as a Time Impact Method but done many times over when one process will do.
It seems as though you are going to have to apply different methods to suit your circumstances - this is not unusual - in the analysis that I am currently working on I am using two methods - As Built v As Planned combined with Impacted As Planned.
The pronciple skill of a delay analyst is in selecting the appropriate method to use and this all depends on the quality of the information available
When I last defended a Sub-Contractors claim for EOT against a Main Contractor I succesfully used the As Built v As Planned method by combining late Contractor Delays with Extended Sub-Contractor periods.
This method of presentation did show concurrency.
The simple method is to save the Baseline Programme with all Main and Sub-Contract activites and set it up as a "Target" programme in p3 or "Baseline" programme in Powerproject.
Then remove all logic and type in the as built dates for each activity.
You will now have a direct comparison of As Planned v As Built on one sheet of paper.
You will also see immediately who caused what delay and where on the programme.
The Sub-Contractor will then have to prove that his delays were not his fault.
Oh, it behooves me to say that the reason behind my using of the window technique is that the subcontractor in many instances and intervals in time was delayed because of lack of resources to commence works at cleared areas, delay in submittals and re-submittals, etc... you know, the usual stuff.
So I guess the window techniqu will be more suitable than the as-planned vs as-built in this case, particualry that I am on the contractors side. Am I right?
Thank you Mike for your rich reply. However, the case is more complicated that that.
In fact the subcontractor did exactly what you are saying. However, the as-built vs as-planned major and main weakness is it does not identify concurrency. Though, I do say it is a good start for a more complex analysis.
Noting tha above, and although there are many iideas in the back of my head, some of which where listed by our friend Mr. R. Catalan hereunder, isnt there a generalized list that identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the usage of contractors programm vs subcontractors progam in assessing a subcontractor claim ?(i.e. irrespective of the particular case that I have and irrespecitive of the technique used).
An As Built v As Planned analysis is appropriate for your situation where a sub-contractors works are sandwiched between other trades.
Where other trades delay the start then the sub-contractor is generally entitled to his programme period from the date that his access was allowed.
A printed copy is sufficient to demonstrate this.
A typical example is where an M&E sub-contractor has allowed 15 working days to hoist and install his plant onto the roof zone plant area - which was planned to be handed over on day 150 of the programme.
This means the plant would be installed by day 165.
If the plant zone was handed over on day 170 then the roof plant would be installed by day 185.
This is typical As Built v As Planned.
The sub-contractor does not have to try to substantiate why the structure was late - just change the dates in his programme.
If the sub-contractor is trying to claim an extra 5 days for installing the plant from 15 to 20 days for reasons beyond his control then he would need to submit either an Impacted as Planned or a Time Impact Analysis which would need an electronic copy of the analysis for you to review his claim.
Well I have to clarify that I am an outsourced party in this case from contractors side to assess the validity of subcontractors claim. In addition, to provide a counter claim.
The subcontract agreement is for around 180M. While the claim for the extension of time onlyis for around 20M. (11% of subcontract price), among other submitted claims (escalaltion, variaitons, etc... )of an overall claimed amount around 65% of the subcontract agreement.
The subcontractor submitted as-built vs as-planned in hard copy and refused to provide soft copy. therefore, the assessment I am conducting is the window analysis technique using contractors soft copies of updates and revisions.
Hope that the above clarifies the issue as deemed necessary.
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Fri, 2009-05-08 06:52
The best thing in this case is to build the "As Built" program depending on the supporting documents of the actual events that took place. Since the program was not approved by the Main Contractor.
.. How big of a project are we talking about Hilal?
If the Contractor was Granted an EOT based on your works, then the EOT should transfer directly to you.
You will need to develop a Schedule Based on the agreement that you have and the Actual events that took place.
Usually, the Main Contractors agreement with the client will have a General Clause about "Evidence of Payment" for the subcontractor. You can utilize this clause to make sure that you are getting paid what you deserve.
Well yes it is an EOT claim. The subcontract does indicate that the subcontractor shall provide a soft copy of its programs/updates.
The main contractor was granted a non-compensable extension of time that covers the period. But, please clarify what is the relation of this with what I am asking for.
I just want to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of using Contractors program (in soft copy)instead of assessing a hard copy of subcontractors claim (of which I already mentioned its missing info). I hope this cleared the issue as deemed necesssary.
Thank you for your coopertaion.
Regards;
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Fri, 2009-05-08 02:58
We have to assume that it is a time extension claim. I would suggest that you ask your client for a copy of the Contract between the two parties. Read it well and identify all the clauses related to your case.
Also check if your Main Contractor was granted a time extension (assuming that your claim is about time) that covers the period your Contract was running.
You can always construct the Program of Works that your client gave you as a hard copy and subsequently, work your trials on your soft copy.
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Thank you Andrew for your reply.
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Hilal,
Which program is relevant to the contract between the main contractor and sub contractor?
I assume if the usual scenario is applicable, the sub contract ties the sub contractor to the main contract programme, but as the sub contractor appears to have produced his own unique programme, may be not in this case!
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Thank you Mike
It helped alot.
Regards;
H. Itani
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Hi Hilal
The benfit of using the main contractors programme is - as I said before - that it is the only place where the two sets of information exist in one programme.
By using the Windows method - which is now outmoded in the UK - you are increasing your workload by a factor equal to the number of slots you adopt.
Fine if you are being paid for by the hour but you will get the same result as doing it all at once.
Remember that there is no logic in the As Built programme so why split it up?
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Dear Samer and Mike;
Actually I am implementing the windows technique as defined under the SCL delay and disruption protocol using the MIP 3.3 of the AACEI Forensic Analysis recomended practice(Observational / Dynamic / Contemporaneous As-Is). This is why I am using the as-built vs as-planned in periodic intervals (windows) but that of the Contractor instead of the Subcontractors. I am not inserting any new fragents.
In this way, I am able to check the concurrecny in its time of happening, instead of looiking at the whole as-built vs as-planned in one shot.
Moreover, the Subcontractors schedule was never consented. Maybe this is another reason in defending the subs claim. SO I am obliged to use the Contractors programme.
However, and despite this very fruitful conversation we are having, I believe that we shifted from the question that I raised before :).
My question is that what are the advantages of using contractors programme instead of subcontractors schedule irrespective of my case and irrespective of the technique used.
Definitly, we are reaching somewhere in this debate, but can this be generalized to be used in each and every case. I guess not.
Each case must be treated on a case by case basis.
Thank you
Regards;
H. Itani
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Dear Hilal,
Did you read the following before, I think that it might also assis you in your quest:
FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS
http://www.aacei.org/technical/rp.shtml#29R-03
Best Regards,
Samer
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Hi Hilal
You need to work on a baseline programme that integrates the sub-contractors work with the other packages.
This would normally be the Main Contractors baseline programme.
The sub-contractors programme would normally be extracted from the Main Contractors programme and the difficulties start if the Sub-Contract baseline prgramme does not coincide with the main Contract Baseline.
In the UK there are four recognised methods of delay analysis.
1. As Built v As Planned which is only suitable for sub-contractor claims where other trades are delaying access.
You are quite right in poiting out that this method does not adequately demonstrate concurrency.
2. Imapcted as Planned which is the only method that can be used used when work is in progress. It relies on a detailed bottom up baseline programme which from my experience is a rare event.
3. Time Impact analysis which compares the impact of events on the As Built situation. This is the most complex but the most reliable method.
4. As Built But For which endeavours to put a critical pth in the As Built programme and then knock out the delay events from finish to start. This method has been discredited since the Shepherd v City Inns case.
Your use of the term Windows has many definitions in different countries and different analysts.
To my mind it is the same as a Time Impact Method but done many times over when one process will do.
It seems as though you are going to have to apply different methods to suit your circumstances - this is not unusual - in the analysis that I am currently working on I am using two methods - As Built v As Planned combined with Impacted As Planned.
The pronciple skill of a delay analyst is in selecting the appropriate method to use and this all depends on the quality of the information available
When I last defended a Sub-Contractors claim for EOT against a Main Contractor I succesfully used the As Built v As Planned method by combining late Contractor Delays with Extended Sub-Contractor periods.
This method of presentation did show concurrency.
The simple method is to save the Baseline Programme with all Main and Sub-Contract activites and set it up as a "Target" programme in p3 or "Baseline" programme in Powerproject.
Then remove all logic and type in the as built dates for each activity.
You will now have a direct comparison of As Planned v As Built on one sheet of paper.
You will also see immediately who caused what delay and where on the programme.
The Sub-Contractor will then have to prove that his delays were not his fault.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Oh, it behooves me to say that the reason behind my using of the window technique is that the subcontractor in many instances and intervals in time was delayed because of lack of resources to commence works at cleared areas, delay in submittals and re-submittals, etc... you know, the usual stuff.
So I guess the window techniqu will be more suitable than the as-planned vs as-built in this case, particualry that I am on the contractors side. Am I right?
Thank you.
Regards;
H. Itani
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Thank you Mike for your rich reply. However, the case is more complicated that that.
In fact the subcontractor did exactly what you are saying. However, the as-built vs as-planned major and main weakness is it does not identify concurrency. Though, I do say it is a good start for a more complex analysis.
Noting tha above, and although there are many iideas in the back of my head, some of which where listed by our friend Mr. R. Catalan hereunder, isnt there a generalized list that identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the usage of contractors programm vs subcontractors progam in assessing a subcontractor claim ?(i.e. irrespective of the particular case that I have and irrespecitive of the technique used).
Thank you all for your cooperation.
Regards;
H. Itani
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Hi Hilal
An As Built v As Planned analysis is appropriate for your situation where a sub-contractors works are sandwiched between other trades.
Where other trades delay the start then the sub-contractor is generally entitled to his programme period from the date that his access was allowed.
A printed copy is sufficient to demonstrate this.
A typical example is where an M&E sub-contractor has allowed 15 working days to hoist and install his plant onto the roof zone plant area - which was planned to be handed over on day 150 of the programme.
This means the plant would be installed by day 165.
If the plant zone was handed over on day 170 then the roof plant would be installed by day 185.
This is typical As Built v As Planned.
The sub-contractor does not have to try to substantiate why the structure was late - just change the dates in his programme.
If the sub-contractor is trying to claim an extra 5 days for installing the plant from 15 to 20 days for reasons beyond his control then he would need to submit either an Impacted as Planned or a Time Impact Analysis which would need an electronic copy of the analysis for you to review his claim.
I hope this helps
Best regards
Mike testro
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Well I have to clarify that I am an outsourced party in this case from contractors side to assess the validity of subcontractors claim. In addition, to provide a counter claim.
The subcontract agreement is for around 180M. While the claim for the extension of time onlyis for around 20M. (11% of subcontract price), among other submitted claims (escalaltion, variaitons, etc... )of an overall claimed amount around 65% of the subcontract agreement.
The subcontractor submitted as-built vs as-planned in hard copy and refused to provide soft copy. therefore, the assessment I am conducting is the window analysis technique using contractors soft copies of updates and revisions.
Hope that the above clarifies the issue as deemed necessary.
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Dear Rommel,
The best thing in this case is to build the "As Built" program depending on the supporting documents of the actual events that took place. Since the program was not approved by the Main Contractor.
.. How big of a project are we talking about Hilal?
Best Regards,
Samer
Member for
20 years 2 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Dear Hilal,
The advantage of using a softcopy in assessing the EOT claim is that you can verify the scheduling parameters and errors in the program.
- Activity relationships
- Calendars used
- Constraints, if any
- Open-ended activities
- Acivities without predecessors and successors
- and many more...
Definitely the Subcontractor is hinding something to avoid rejection of the EOT claim.
Best regards,
R. Catalan
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Dear Hilal,
If the Contractor was Granted an EOT based on your works, then the EOT should transfer directly to you.
You will need to develop a Schedule Based on the agreement that you have and the Actual events that took place.
Usually, the Main Contractors agreement with the client will have a General Clause about "Evidence of Payment" for the subcontractor. You can utilize this clause to make sure that you are getting paid what you deserve.
Best,
Samer
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Sorry for inconvenience.
The subcontract does NOT indicate that the subcontractor shall provide a soft copy of its programs/updates.
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Dear Samer;
Well yes it is an EOT claim. The subcontract does indicate that the subcontractor shall provide a soft copy of its programs/updates.
The main contractor was granted a non-compensable extension of time that covers the period. But, please clarify what is the relation of this with what I am asking for.
I just want to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of using Contractors program (in soft copy)instead of assessing a hard copy of subcontractors claim (of which I already mentioned its missing info). I hope this cleared the issue as deemed necesssary.
Thank you for your coopertaion.
Regards;
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: Contractor’s Program vs Subcontractor’s in claims
Dear Hilal,
We have to assume that it is a time extension claim. I would suggest that you ask your client for a copy of the Contract between the two parties. Read it well and identify all the clauses related to your case.
Also check if your Main Contractor was granted a time extension (assuming that your claim is about time) that covers the period your Contract was running.
You can always construct the Program of Works that your client gave you as a hard copy and subsequently, work your trials on your soft copy.
Best Regards,
Samer