Logic in Impacted Schedule

Brennan,



I agree with you.



That is why Rohit got to get all the information that is necessary to arrive at a baseline schedule acceptable to all, incorporating hidden agreement in a subtle way, etc.





Cheers,



Charlie

Regardless of what high level agreements are made, you still need to agree a baseline for completion of the project on time.



There is usually a clause in the contract whereby a baseline schedule has to be submitted x number of days after contract award.



Its better to deal with delays to contract award at that point before getting into an EOT situation.

Hi Rohit,



I think there are some information that you are not aware.



This show in your post.



You know sometimes the big bosses may have already agree that irespective of the issuance of notice to proceed there will be no claims whatsoever.



So i think it is better to approach your situation on a case to case basis, meaning what are the documents available upon receipt of NTP. What are the hidden agreements? This is the most important because you can tailor your TIA base on the hidden agreement between the gods of the project.



If your position is very junior, just play with the games.



Cheers,



Charlie

Eventhough contract duration is unchanged, the project completion date will be delayed by 1 month due to delay in issuing NTP. Hence contractually we must write a letter to the engineer with the revised baseline schedule. Engineer has to approve the revised schedule or else he may issue LAD???. If there is any provision in the contract about claiming overheads due to the 1 month period delay go for it(because you have done the mobilisation already, check the approved baseline schedule when the mobilisation has to start? before NTP or after NTP)accordingly you can think of it.

But as the contract duration remains the same you still have the same amount of time to complete the work. You are not losing any time due to the delay in issue of the NTP.



It has delayed the completion date as you rightly say, but as the contract duration remains the same and starts from the date of issue of the NTP then the contractual completion date will be pushed out by one month as a result.

If time start from the date of the NTP and if the amount of time you have to complete the work remains unchanged then I can see no justification for an EOT.

Rohit,

If you have done the activity ( Demolision) before the start of road consturction, how it affects in road construction?. ( DOnt think if you delayed the demolision and do just before the road construction).



If you have a valids reason for stoppage or delay in work such as relase of documents / approvals etc Introduce an activity " Delay in issue of........" with duration equal to the delay then link with sucessor in base plan so that ur end date will shift in base plan. ( Consult with engineer)

You cant just play in schedule!!. If it is properly linked ,defenitly the delay will affect the projrct end date.

Rohit,



If your programme is incorporated into the contract, ie it is a true contract document, it is part of the contract made between the Employer and Contractor. That may seem blindingly obvious, but it’s significance may not be so obvious. A contract may normally (subject to express provisions) only be varied by the agreement of both parties. Many standard forms expressly allows the CA to vary the contract but not the contractor - therefore the only person who can sanction a change to the programme (ie contract) is the CA. (or Employer/Contractor together) The argument then follows that any change in the programme has to be issued as an instructed variation of the contract by the CA - which would then normally entitle the contractor to some sort of payment under the contract.

Rohit,



You say "We executed this additional work MUCH BEFORE the start of its successor activity (Start of Road construction)as per the instruction issued by engineer" yet you somehow seem to want to claim that the first activity had an impact on the successor activity. Try claiming for something that DID have an impact on the successor activity and you may get a more sympathetic hearing from the CA.



I don’t think "must have caused disruption" is an assumption you can make. It might of done, but then that’s up to you to prove that it did.



Why were the lead and lag’s taken out?

Charles,



Although I have so sympathy in what you are saying, I would qualify it as to the Contractors obligations are to carry out the original scope of contract works within the original schedule.



He also has an obligation to try and take reasonable measures to mitigate delays that are not his. By reasonable I mean those measures that don’t generally involve great expense on his part. He does not normally have any obligation to carry out the original scope of work plus alot more work heaped on him by the Employer during the contract, within the original contract schedule.



Hence why he keeps impacting the programme with this extra work in order to work out his entitlement to extra time to do the extra work that was not of his making. His myopic view of claims is due to working for too many Employers who think they’ve employed a charity and can tell it to do anything and everything without having to pay a single dollar more the extra work.

Hello to All,



This is really a thorny issue in construction management. As a consequence a "War of Attrition" atmosphere will be prevalent during the implementation phase of the project.



I find it hard to understand why the contractor side keep on looking at the myopic view of claims. While it is true that variation are bound to happen (maybe reasonable EOT and cost entitlement, but to continue impacting the programme and showing project completion dates beyond the original schedules, it is still the contractor responsibility to find ways in achieving contractual obligations.



Only my humble opinion.



Cheers,



Charlie

Rohit,



I think from what you are saying is that the additional overall activitiy (and probably the original activities) need to be broken down into a number of sub activities and each sub activity properly linked to those other activities that they affected.



Each additional work sub activity is then impacted in chronological order at the time they occurred and the effect of each sub activity noted, overall progress being updated before each impact. This will allow you to separate out the impact of additional and original works.



And yes the logic should be changed to show the mitigation measures. If I’m correct in my assumptions, you are trying to do a form of Time Impact Analysis The overall objective of this type of analysis is to try and reflect the changing programme as it goes from the original as planned to the as built, hence the logic should be changed to reflect what happened on site but the changes should only be made in the analysis at the time that it was decided on site to change the logic.