Hi Vishwas,
Glad I could help ;-)
Please keep me posted on developments (love to see the counter-argument of the other side...!)

Cheers,
Stuart
P.S. Mine’s a large one ! (the drink I mean!)

www.rosmartin.com

Vishwas,
Thanx for the additional input.
As you have probably already worked out, your EOT entitlement is measured by the planned and actual finish dates of your GF Slab.
The scheduled completion of the GF Slab was 13 June, but you actually completed 34 calendar days (30 work days) later on 18 July. The reasons for this delay are threefold:
 Enforced delayed start to the GF slab;
 More time required to cast and complete GF Slab.

The enforced delayed start to the GF slab was itself caused by three further reasons:
 Expectation of instruction to change;
 Late issue of instruction to change; and
 Existing 17-day delay to the Works.

There is a 30 working day delay (13 June to 18 July) in the finish to the GF Slab (assuming a 6 day work week). The instruction to change was issued in the middle of this period (20 June) and it no doubt required a re-engineering of the design for the GF Slab. In addition any pre-production of rebar and formwork for the original slab design was also probably abortive. I have no doubt that you can argue that the time from issue of the formal instruction on 20 June until start of the construction of the slab on 4 July was a fair and reasonable time frame for the re-engineering work and for a re-work to the formwork and rebar. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for you to start the GF Slab on 4 July.

If there had been no instruction to change the GF Slab, the Contractor would have been expected to commence work to the GF slab on 12 June. This is based on the fact that under the Schedule, work to the GF slab was to start 3 days before the completion of the UB columns. Since the columns were completed on 15 June, the GF slab should have started on 12 June. However, the Contractor anticipated an instruction related to the GF slab, which was duly issued on 20 June, and arising out of this delayed instruction, the Contractor could not start until 4 July.
Because of the Consultant’s instruction, the Contractor was prevented from making a meaningful start to the GF slab until 4 July, which represents a delay of 28 days measured against the original planned start date of 2 June.

Under the original schedule, the GF slab should have been completed on 13 June, whereas the actual construction of the GF slab was completed on 18 July. This represents a further delay during construction of another 2 days. I would argue that you are entitled to the extra 2 days for reduced productivity due to the out of sequence nature of the late instruction.

The total amount of the delays through to the end of construction of the GF slab is therefore (28+2) 30 days.

However, the Contractor is responsible for 17 days of this delay, so the Contractor’s entitlement to additional time becomes (30-17) 13 work days. If this remains on the CP, the Contractor should be entitled to an EOT and his time-related costs for this 13 day period.

In addition, the Contractor should also be entitled to disruption costs related to the rework of the engineering and any abortive material costs arising out of the late instruction.

The Consultant’s argument, however, is that the Contractor was already late, so the fact that he issued an instruction on 20 June was not relevant. Mmmm…not quite true!

As noted above, the Contractor expected to start the GF Slab on 12 June; this is based on the premise that under the original schedule, he was expected to start the GF Slab 3 days before the completion of the UB Columns. Since the columns were actually completed on 15 June, then the Contractor would have expected to start the GF Slab 3 days earlier, on 12 June. Therefore, the issue of an instruction by the Consultant was very much a delaying matter and it caused undue disruption to the Contractor, since it was issued beyond the date when the Contractor reasonably anticipated starting the GF Slab. However, in view of the expectation of a change, the Contractor opted to wait until he received formal instruction.

In truth, what the Contractor did was that he mitigated the effect of the forthcoming instruction. By waiting until he received the formal instruction, the Contractor did not incur the additional costs of constructing the GF Slab, which otherwise would have had to be broken out and the total costs thereof would have been charged to the Owner.

The Consultant’s instruction was untimely and he is therefore wrong in denying the Contractor the additional EOT, time-related costs and disruption costs.
In addition, I note some acceleration of the UB Slab and Columns, so I would also question as to whether or not the delay attributed to the Contractor really was as much as 17 days.

If this is still unclear, Vishwas, I can produce a more coherent narrative and causal connection, but I hope that this version is at least understandable.
Please let me know if you need to have any part of it clarified, and of course, if you think that I have got any of it wrong, please let me know.

Cheers,
Stuart
www.rosmartin.com

Vishwas,
Thanx for your clarification, and I am sorry for these supplementary questions: still not got my brain in top gear! ;-)

At the time of receiving the instruction from the Consultant (20 June) you had completed the UB Slab and Columns. According to your original schedule, you should have started on the GF Slab on 2 June, this being 4 days before the end of the preceeding activity for the colums. You should therefore have been expected to start on the GF Slab 4 days before the actual end of the UB Columns, i.e. on (15-4) 11 June.
Did you commence work on the original GF Slab (before the design was altered by the Consultant)? If so, when did you start?
If not, why not (such as you anticipated a design change coming along anyway, perhaps??)

Further to your earlier reply, can I assume that the Contractor was responsible for the earlier 17 day delay?

Cheers,
Stuart
www.rosmartin.com

Hi Vishwas,

What was the original Target Start date for the GF Slab and what is now the revised Target Completion date for the GF Slab? If possible, can you also say what the Actual Completion date was for the GF Slab?
Is there any float in the GF Slab activity, and if so, how much?

In addition, is the existing 17 day delay the responsiblity of the Consultant/Owner due to his earlier actions (or non-actions)?

Cheers,
Stuart
www.rosmartin.com