acceleration of the works

I believed that all views and explanations posted are all valid reasons. The only thing that have been missed is the contractors right to refuse or not accepting the variation if he wanted to. Usually because of good and long relationship between the client and the contractor that needs to maintain that is why variations are normally accepted without hesitation but it also processed on fair negotiations. As stated by Clive, time and cost are being looked at so it will be enough to contractor to cover the losses or his intensions. At the end it is still contractor’s decision to accept the variations. On my point of view, contractors will not live to lost another contract from different clients or suffer more if he will accept variation knowing that he will gained losses more money at the end.

Gary,



Are you in the habit of paying for something you haven’t asked for.



The Contractor made a decision, totaly for his own commercial benefit.



He was doing a contract, in that contract variations were allowed - there was always the risk that extra work might be ordered keeping his plant etc on site longer. It isn’t a rare thing for extra work to happen on a construction contract, if fact it’s almost an inherent certainty.



He had to weigh up the risks and make a decision - he did. This time it hasn’t worked in his favour but that’s the nature of being in business. Construction is all about risk management - you win some, you lose some.



The contractor will have to go and hire some more plant, source some labour from somewhere to start the other contract (or finish this one). Not the end of the world and a situation every contractor faces from time to time.

Andrew,



I think Khawaja is working for the commercial side of the Contractor. If he finish early and makes the Customer happy then he can negotiate for a bonus, but this is the Customer’s kindness (if not considered in the contract).

Khawaja,



If the extra works affected the completion date then yes the Contractor would be due an EoT, but in the information given, we’re assuming it doesn’t.



Why should the Employer be obliged to pay for the acceleration - it’s something he hasn’t instructed or asked for?



If the Contractor had not accelerated but finished on the proper date could the Employer ask for a saving because the Contractor didn’t finish early!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think not.

hi,

why can’t the contractor show this event on the base line program to show its impact on over all completion date.

If it does effect the project completion date ,contractor ,in my opinion has all the right to claim EOT.Though seeing actual staus of the project if however client feels that impact of the event in as built program does not effect the project completion date than eventually contractor has all the right to claim for the acceleration of work ......why ..bcoz the work which was accelerate dby the contractor for his own benifit will go to the owner.

This is a simple case ....but matters how it is presented.

And generally, the Client is under no obligation to help the Contractor finish early - only to ensure the Contractor can comply with his contractual obligations to finish on he contract completion date.

If the Contractor has set his baseline program and have it approved by the Client in the first place, then it is his option to accelerate the works by adding his resources or improve his methodologies to increase his profits and finish the project ahead of schedule.



IMO, additional works requested by the Client that was not considered in the approved baseline schedule, is another story, whether or not it affects the time schedule.

Clive,



And there in lies the difference:



"the contractor clearly identified both at the time of tender... that he had commitments for the dredger"



If the contract was clearly agreed on that basis then that was the agreement, but it doesn’t appear to be the case below.

Ashraf,



Interesting one, as Clive said, not really enough information but the starting point is the Contractor has taken on the contract, which presumably allowed for variations, and therefore tough.



His decision to accelerate and finish early to start another job is his own, a commercial decision which he bears the responsibility for, not the Employer.



As long as the variation properly falls within the contract it is to be valued under the terms of the contract with no regard to anything else. If the contract hasn’t been varied, ie the Employer hasn’t agreed to the early completion then the Contractors taken a risk and this time it hasn’t paid off.



If no express consent from the Employer has been given then the only circumstance in which it might be different is if the Contractor can somehow imply the Employers consent to an earlier completion date, ie that the contract has been varied. Given the Employers desire to instruct the extra work then I think this probably would be difficult.



If the Contractor refuses to carry out the work, validly instructed under the contract, then he is in breach of contract and the Employer can claim damages against him. Oh, and if the Contractor can still complete on time then he is not entitled to an EoT.



What the Contractor is entitled to however, is a fair valuation of the additional works in accordance with the contract and possibly (probably) prolongation costs for the Employer keeping him on site for longer than he would have been. For the details of this, you’ll have to digest the contract and see what it says. I’m sure there are a variety of arguments the Contractor can put forward to enhance the price if he puts his mind to it.



In any case, it is up to the Contractor how he sorts out his other work commitments, it is of no interest to the Employer of this contract.



Might seem abit tough, but at the end of the day the Employer is paying and his interest is in seeing that his contract gets completed, not that Joe Bloggs contract down the road gets started.



Contracts are generally written to ensure performance or that the Employer has sufficient recourse (LD’s, termination rights, bonds, set off provisions, company guarantees, retention, indemnites, condition precedents, insurance) to pay for the work to be completed should the Contractor fail in his performance.



You could end up in a big mess by trying to be accomodating on this one, however tempting and reasonable it would appear. Following the contract might also end up in a different mess but the Employer should at least CLEARLY know where he stands and what remedies are available, should the Contractor dissappear

Ashraf,



The right to claim by the Contractor is inherint in the contract. We have to accept this whenever in the opinion of the contractor has the right to claim.



However, whether the claim is valid or not, that should be in the opinion of the client’s representative or by the client itself.



The contractor may not be happy by the opinion of the client’s representative or by the client itself, still the contractor has a lot of options in the contract.



So now, i have no opinion to give further since i do not know the details.



Cheers,



Charlie

Additional works but no impact on current status of proeject - this can happen only in client’s perspective because in theory extra work means extra effort, extra resource and extra time.



Just like Contractor’s hidden agenda, the Client has hidden agenda as well - in this case - he gets aware of the situation when the Contractor is getting ahead of schedule and then thinks he can use this time to get some additional work done.



If the Client has paid the Contractor to accelerate, then he could ask the additional works to be done in that "saved time". Otherwise, extra works mean extra time.