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.

Delay Due to increased volume of excavation.

8 replies [Last post]
Tue, 2007-05-15 02:57
Pranab Kumar Deb
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 291
Groups: Civil Engineering
Dear all,
We have a LUMP SUM project
( the contrat being FIDIC Conditions of Contract
for CONSTRUCTION
FOR BUILDING AND ENGINEERING WORKS
DESIGNED BY THE EMPLOYER)
which had a Tender volume of excavation =4200 m3 whereas the actual volume of excavation was aroun 12,000 m3 . The excavation item being in the critical path the project is presently in delay of around 4 months whereas the total days considered initally for the activity was 35 days it actually took 114 days, please advice how this delay along with damages can be claimed for such the scenario .
The baseline program is in P3.
regards
deb
Top

Replies

Sat, 2007-07-07 06:12
#1
Bolisetti Jogiraju
User offline. Last seen 5 years 3 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Jul 2007
Posts: 32
Groups: None
Hi pranab
I agree with Brayn.
You have to identify the "change" of quantity arised from,
As your contract is Lump Sum.
then,we can discuss further.

Cheers
Top
Thu, 2007-05-17 02:21
#2
Pranab Kumar Deb
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 291
Groups: Civil Engineering
Thanks shahzad and karim for your helpful inputs.
i am checking all the contract documents to see our case here.
regards
deb
Top
Wed, 2007-05-16 10:55
#3
Shahzad Munawar
User offline. Last seen 8 years 51 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Jul 2003
Posts: 551
Groups: None
If as per Contract Agreement, your disputes are to be referred to ICC therefore in such case you should prepare and submit your claim very carefully keeping in view the relevant contract clause, proper justification alongwith fully substantiation documents. Incomplete claims never be entertained in ICC.
Top
Wed, 2007-05-16 02:10
#4
Karim Mounir
User offline. Last seen 9 years 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 5 Apr 2006
Posts: 314
Groups: None
Therefore u need to formulate a claim in order to discuss this dispute later (but as mentioned in the beginning u need to support your position by reviewing the tender drawings vs. the current situation).
Top
Wed, 2007-05-16 01:48
#5
Pranab Kumar Deb
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 291
Groups: Civil Engineering
Dear karim ,
we dont have a DAB , the contract says all disputes will be referred to the International Chamber of commerce ONCE THE BUILDING HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE CLIENT
regards
deb
Top
Wed, 2007-05-16 01:00
#6
Karim Mounir
User offline. Last seen 9 years 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 5 Apr 2006
Posts: 314
Groups: None
deb,
IMO if the increment is 285% then you have to review the tender drawings in order to know if u have rights anything against the employer to be able to proceed accordingly to the DAB or even arbitration.

Good Luck.
Top
Tue, 2007-05-15 23:25
#7
Pranab Kumar Deb
User offline. Last seen 2 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 291
Groups: Civil Engineering
Dear Bryan ,
Thanks for ur input, ya the contract is Fidic 99 1 st edition , Clause 12 has been deleted completely by a modified conditions of particular application.
Thats what i am thinkign bryan i believe we dont have a case here as the contract has been modified in such a manner that the contractor is always out there in the cold. Notice about the substantial increaase in the volume of excavation was given once , and was also noted in a Minutes of site meeting but the time impact was never mentioned only cost impact was advised which the client engineer had rejected outright.
regards
deb
Top
Tue, 2007-05-15 11:15
#8
Bryan Russell
User offline. Last seen 9 years 47 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 29
Groups: None
Hi Pranab,

I assume your contract is FIDIC 99 1st ed. You should look at Clause 12.3 (a) for a new rate if the circumstances fulfill those conditions. If it was the subject of a variation - new levels size, etc it will get valued under sub-clause (b) of 12.3

This concept of variation on a Lump Sum contract is very dependent on the wording of the Contract, you may even have no claim for the extra cost unless some details of the data you tendered on was wrong.

The time, however, is not so easy. As long as you had given notice that the work was so much greater than the tendered quantity that it would extend the Time for Completion under Clause 8.4 (a) and then processed it through Clause 20.1, you probably have lost your rights to the time. Again this depends on the wording of the Lump Sum enquiry data.

Best of luck
Top