Gentlemen,

Each month the Contractor applies for payment, within that payment application is usually an amount for Variations, Day works & Claims. This sum is usually backed up by an AI Schedule and a Claim Summary log identifying the value of each event and each event would probably have its breakdown in some cursory format, Day works dockets, vouchers, invoices etc, there may even be an attempt at estimating an amount or attaching some other records, nevertheless some form of detail.

Usually at the same time (or at intervals to suit the Contract notice requirements) a monthly progress report is being submitted. There is usually a section in that report that says matters affecting progress with a no blame narrative of what happened during the month as a record. Furthermore, attached to the report is the updated as built program and various other logs such as Drawing register, AI schedule, RFI schedules (Reqests for Information and Requests for Inspection), Claims log, Labour and Plant logs etc. You want Logs in this report, just ask and they can usually be provided. The record in my experience is maintained. You just have to be willing to roll your sleeves up an dig. Oh and by the way to know what you are looking for helps.

The above information provided, whether believable or not, is/are detailed particulars (bear in mind under professional ethics misrepresentation is abhorred and if criminal or negligent can be prosecuted).

What I want to know is why the Engineer always hides behind a veneer of rhetoric and this above information is never deemed the detailed particulars required by the Contract?

Roger Gibson, you replied that

“The ’Dominant Cause Approach’ as regards Concurrency, is generally expressed by Lawyers as,

"if there are two causes, the effective, dominant cause is to be the deciding factor".

Sounds simple doesn’t it, but as you say ’how Do we determine the dominant cause’.

This is determined by the facts of the concurrent delays in question, and not by a method of Delay Analysis.

Under most forms of contract an Extension of Time, should be awarded when an event occurs which is likely to cause a delay to completion of the project. This means that in the ideal world, a Contractor will be granted an EOT before the delay happens, and therefore concurrent delays and the ’dominant cause’, or any of the other concurrent delay approaches favoured by lawyers, such as ’Devlin approach’, ’Burden of Proof approach’ or ’Malmaison approach’ need to be considered.”

This is important as with most Construction Contracts and delay claims that I have had experience dealing with, the Engineer always maintains an extension of time can only be granted if the Contractor can provide evidence [within certain time limits or in the event of a continuous occurrence at intervals not exceeding a prescribed duration] that disruption occurred. Note the past tense!

I have on many occasions submitted notice of the Engineers delinquency in this regard, but, alas to no avail to date. I shall pursue our rights with more vigour in future.

Thank you DB.

ps Engineers take note? You shall determine, it does not say you may determine.