Stuart is correct and my comment only relates to the recovery of the Engineers approval period.
As you state the changes were last minute, I assume that the design has been submitted and approved prior to the changes being instructed. If so, the Engineer has had his 15 days once, which was the period allowed in your programme for approval(of course you allowed it!). He can not have another 15 days if the reason he requires it is of his own making.
Your claim for delay therefore should rightly include any subsequent period over and above the original approval period as long as that period is caused by the actions of the Engineer.
If the Main Contractor has the overall responsibility for the design of the PT work, (which I expect would be the case!), then I suggest that you are also entitled to be compensated for the time and costs related to anything in that design work that is changed by the Engineer.
Put simply: if the Engineer alters the design of the Works, whether or not it includes the PT work, the Main Contractor should be able to claim for the additional time and money related to the engineering, procurement and construction work that flows from the changes as instructed.
Well you provided an answer to me in your question.
The comments of the consultant in this matter is one sentence,Main contractor is responsible for design and installation of post tension work as agreed in the letter of nomination. Any design for post tension work is in your scope.
Actually during tendering period, consultant has provided us the drawings from another of the project which is same in design except for basements.( the project is being done by us)
We have already commented to the consultant specifying that all revisions constitutes redesign of slab which is not our scope and we deserve for claim.
I am trying to get my head around your dilemma, but I am having some difficulty in so doing based on the information that you have supplied.
Am I correct in thinking that the Consultant’s view is that your entitlement to EOT only applied to your engineering/design works, and that you have no entitlement to time thereafter? If so, I would suggest that the Consultant is wrong, if for no other reason that it does not take into account the late start of the PT work!!
It may be that the changed PT work itself will take no longer to execute and complete than that originally foreseen (I cannot say from the details so far), but to my mind there is a likely delay in the start of the PT work caused by the (late?) change required by the Consultant, and this late start – if it swallows up all your float and impacts the CP – should entitle you to some additional time, in addition to that caused by the change to the engineering/design work.
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: Provisional Sum
Irfan,
Stuart is correct and my comment only relates to the recovery of the Engineers approval period.
As you state the changes were last minute, I assume that the design has been submitted and approved prior to the changes being instructed. If so, the Engineer has had his 15 days once, which was the period allowed in your programme for approval(of course you allowed it!). He can not have another 15 days if the reason he requires it is of his own making.
Your claim for delay therefore should rightly include any subsequent period over and above the original approval period as long as that period is caused by the actions of the Engineer.
Member for
21 years 4 monthsRE: Provisional Sum
Irfan,
If the Main Contractor has the overall responsibility for the design of the PT work, (which I expect would be the case!), then I suggest that you are also entitled to be compensated for the time and costs related to anything in that design work that is changed by the Engineer.
Put simply: if the Engineer alters the design of the Works, whether or not it includes the PT work, the Main Contractor should be able to claim for the additional time and money related to the engineering, procurement and construction work that flows from the changes as instructed.
Hope this helps,
Stuart
www.rosmartin.com
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: Provisional Sum
Hi stuart,
Well you provided an answer to me in your question.
The comments of the consultant in this matter is one sentence,Main contractor is responsible for design and installation of post tension work as agreed in the letter of nomination. Any design for post tension work is in your scope.
Actually during tendering period, consultant has provided us the drawings from another of the project which is same in design except for basements.( the project is being done by us)
We have already commented to the consultant specifying that all revisions constitutes redesign of slab which is not our scope and we deserve for claim.
Well any comments?
Regards
irfan
Member for
21 years 4 monthsRE: Provisional Sum
Irfan,
I am trying to get my head around your dilemma, but I am having some difficulty in so doing based on the information that you have supplied.
Am I correct in thinking that the Consultant’s view is that your entitlement to EOT only applied to your engineering/design works, and that you have no entitlement to time thereafter? If so, I would suggest that the Consultant is wrong, if for no other reason that it does not take into account the late start of the PT work!!
It may be that the changed PT work itself will take no longer to execute and complete than that originally foreseen (I cannot say from the details so far), but to my mind there is a likely delay in the start of the PT work caused by the (late?) change required by the Consultant, and this late start – if it swallows up all your float and impacts the CP – should entitle you to some additional time, in addition to that caused by the change to the engineering/design work.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Stuart
www.rosmartin.com