Ashraf,

In most countries the contractor is not entitled to acceleration claims unless the contract expressly states he is and then it’s often only instructed acceleration and not constructive acceleration. ie, the countries legal system tends not to recognise a contractors right to constructive acceleration.

In my opinion a contractor that is put in the position of having to accelerate due to the non issue of an EoT that is OBVIOUSLY due should be able to claim for acceleration, but unfortunately the laws of most places don’t see it this way.

Most legal systems (common law) put the contractor in the position of having to:

1. choose from accelerating so as to hit the existing completion date and then trying to recover acceleration costs, which will be very difficult and probably end up in an expensive dispute.

2. carry on regardless and hope they get an EoT to cover any over run later - again, usually by going to arbitration/litigation and fighting for it (unless adjudication is available or similar).

Neither course of action is very appealing. In those countries that adjudication is available, or the contract has a DRB that can give binding decisions (although probably not finally binding), then the contractor has a good way of resolving the problem quickly and not being put in the situation above.

The solution to the problem is that the Engineer should play by the rules and correctly administer the contract, granting fair and reasonable EoT’s when due. The problem shouldn’t then arise. But for a million and one reasons this often doesn’t happen and things end up in a dispute. Most construction phase disputes have an argument over time in them.

If contractors knew that costs for constructive acceleration were more easilly recoverable then maybe they would be more willing to spend the extra money to get the job done on time and less projects would over run.

In many different contracts and in many places,We have assised and analized acceleration claims .

The basis of the Contractuale issues could not be extreemly changed from place to another specially for the engineering construction field consdering that shall follow the international role and condetion of contract since it is a part of the international businss.

Dear Gupta,
previously you said that the client has suggested to take the as-built duration for variation work into consideration.

Could your client suggeste and agree on the same if you have completed the variation works in 5 days instead of 1 day as you did (most probably, the answer is no!).

It does not matter when you have xecutad the variations, the main valid point is what is your right and what was the actual time and cost impact of those variations on your programme.

If the client is insisting to use the as-built duration he has to be fair and pay you the acceleration costs.

Also we have to differntiate between two issues variations and delay’s events.in order to reflect the actual impact and the reialistic EOT.

However,if the time impact for event A individually was 5 days andthe time impact for event B individually was 3 days, it is not neccessary that total EOT should be 8 days
but it will be based on the logic relationship
between event A and B:-

If the relationship was FS wit lag 0 ,EOT could be 8 days
If the relationship was FS wit lag 2 ,EOT could be 10 days
If the relationship was SS wit lag 0 ,EOT could be 5 days
If the relationship was SS wit lag 2 ,EOT could be 5 days
If the relationship was SS wit lag 3 ,EOT could be 6days

and so on basd on IF SCENARIOS.

Puneet,

The EoT entitlement should reflect the delay ACTUALLY caused, and so if the contractor carried out both activites on the same day then the the actual delay caused was 1 day - hence EoT 1 day.

If the contractor had carried out the activities on consecutive days, then as long as he had a valid reason to do this, the EoT would have been 2 days. But he didn’t, so his EoT entitlement is 1 day.

It’s the contractors duty (and employers, consultants, sub contractors, etc) to mitigate all delays, irrespective of who caused the delay, hence why if he had carried out the variations over 2 days when he could have done them on the same day, he would need a good reason as why he did this.

Puneet,

If both Employer delays were occuring at the same time you should impact the event that started first and this will give you a delay period. Then you impact the second event and if this gives further delay then it the period over and above that of the first delay that you can claim for the second event.

eg

1st event when impacted moves completion date 5 days giving EoT of 5 days. 2nd event (even though it may start on the same day) moves the completion date a FURTHER 3 days, EoT for both events is 8 days. 5 days attributable to event 1, 3 days to event 2.

If you’d impacted the events, as they start on the same day, in reverse order then event 2 would have moved the completion date 8 days and event 1 would have shown no effect. The EoT would still be 8 days though, all attributable to event 2.

This is a nice example of how the order in which events are impacted can affect the "cause - effect" relationship of events and delays.

*Concurrent Delay is a Parallel Delay happend from both parties (client and the contractor).
*The case in not clear since you are telling that"there is a delay from engineer side say Variation of works which we executed on the same day"
*Also, can you clear what do you nean by"we are entitiled for both of them in terms of Time."
Can you explaine your case clearly in order to be able to give you our judgement.
Good Luck.