Guild of Project Controls: Compendium | Roles | Assessment | Certifications | Membership

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

Concurrent Delays wrt EoT’s

8 replies [Last post]
Martin Corkill
User offline. Last seen 2 years 11 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 4 Jul 2003
Posts: 25
Groups: None
Hi all,

I’m new to these forums, but not to the website or the planning profession. I’ve had a good read through here today and downloaded the SCL Delay Protocol document. In there it states (point 9) "Where contractor delay to completion occurs or has effect concurrently with employer delay to completion, the contractors concurrent delay should not reduce any EOT due".

I disagree with this statement completely... say for example a contractor is 4 months behind programme when they discover that an activity can’t take place as planned due to design / co-ordination issues. An instruction is issued by the employer to make the relevant changes due to co-ordination / design, which then impacts the end date by an additional 3 weeks (hypothetically).

Now, bearing in mind that if the contractor were on time in the first place, this issue would have been picked up 4 months earlier and probably had no impact to the project comopletion date, but according to the SCL Delay Protocol document, the contractor would be entitled to claim for 4 months and 3 weeks EOT ? That doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.

Replies

Roger Gibson
User offline. Last seen 6 years 27 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Jun 2001
Posts: 71
The link is www.eotprotocol.com.

Roger Gibson
Forum Guest
User offline. Last seen 2 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 1
Groups: None
Mark,
Thanks for your respond. Could you please provide the link to this forum?
Mark Lomas
User offline. Last seen 15 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 177
Groups: None
The Protocol has its supporters and its detractors. I think the SCL has its own forum dedicated to debating the protocol. So you may wish to browse the points raised there. Some of our own PP members have also raised concerns about the Protocol in these forums.
Uri Shachar
User offline. Last seen 6 years 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 82
Groups: None
Your interpretation of the protocol is wrong. In your example, the contractor would have been granted an EOT of 3 weeks, not 4 months and 3 weeks.
Martin Corkill
User offline. Last seen 2 years 11 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 4 Jul 2003
Posts: 25
Groups: None
No problem... it makes for some interesting reading... also has some good topics for discussion.
MK TSE
User offline. Last seen 3 years 42 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 550
Groups: None
Thanks.
Forum Guest
User offline. Last seen 2 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 1
Groups: None
I got it from : http://www.eotprotocol.com/downloadlogin.php I registered for a temporary username that expires on Sunday - Username : blinding Password : light
MK TSE
User offline. Last seen 3 years 42 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 550
Groups: None
Excuse me, may I know which web site can download the document.
Without reading the document, it seems there is some grey area. Like ’consolidated’ EOT or claim on dollar side rather EOT.
The practice, assess concurrent delay is a hardship. To identify which is the critical and all the associated influence. The ’which’ may be a breakdown of activity. Oh! much to discuss.