Your advice is basically correct but the EoT allowed is the Further Delay Period that extends beyond the Contractor's Delay which is added to the current completion date.
But then we must remember that this principle is good in English Law and may not extend to the Phillipines or wherever Ronn is now working.
I would think yes, you can claim the EOT for the redesign delay only.
The way I see it, you used up the float when you got behind and the activity became critical. Since it is generally accepted* that the float belongs to the project (whoever gets to it first, uses it), the fact that the structural re-design became critical is unfortunate (for the Client) but irrelevant and the associated extension of time should be claimable.
*Unless there is a clause in the contract that says the float belongs to the Client or similar...
My thought is that you would need to look at the updated schedule
On the day you should have started the excavation for the PORTION of Superstructure works and see if there was any Float (A) to your part of the activities.
Do an updated schedule on the Day you started excavation and see the current status of the Schedule, if there is any float (B)
No of Days for the Redesign work (C)
Ideally A-B+C should be your entitlement for extension of time.
However, Senior members maybe better placed to answer to your query.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Nathan Welcome to Planning
Hi Nathan
Welcome to Planning Planet.
Your advice is basically correct but the EoT allowed is the Further Delay Period that extends beyond the Contractor's Delay which is added to the current completion date.
But then we must remember that this principle is good in English Law and may not extend to the Phillipines or wherever Ronn is now working.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
13 years 7 monthsI would think yes, you can
I would think yes, you can claim the EOT for the redesign delay only.
The way I see it, you used up the float when you got behind and the activity became critical. Since it is generally accepted* that the float belongs to the project (whoever gets to it first, uses it), the fact that the structural re-design became critical is unfortunate (for the Client) but irrelevant and the associated extension of time should be claimable.
*Unless there is a clause in the contract that says the float belongs to the Client or similar...
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Ronn This is a classic
Hi Ronn
This is a classic case of a Relevant Event Delay occurring during a period of Contractor Culpable Delay.
(aslo known as the Dot - On pronciple)
The point turns on whether the Relevant Event Delay caused any further delay.
If so then the further delay should be added to the completion date as an EoT with costs for that extra period.
See Balfour Beatty v Chestermount for the ruling.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
18 years 9 monthsDear RonnMy thought is that
Dear Ronn
My thought is that you would need to look at the updated schedule
However, Senior members maybe better placed to answer to your query.
Best regards
Pranab