No our QS capacity is really bad actually. The ones we have on site are pretty pathetic actually and they arent at all proactive. Thanks for your advice, it puts a lot of things in perspective.

Can you define ’change the works’? are you refering to site instructions and VOs? The problem is out controls on site. The PM issues to the site manager instructions (or the design team) which we just go ahead and do. Planners dont get involved (though we should) and the work is happening/happened by the time we record it in the progress updates.

I agree with what you are saying. I usually use 10 days anyways, but we do start brickwork earler than 1o days (in between the props to work faster,i,e, mitigate losses caused by the information being late) and also to preempt delays down the line with finishing trades (always being a shortage in South Africa). In other words, we are setting off one delay against a future possible expected delay.

The problems starts with the contract programme being chopped and changed by the PM during the contract award stages before the contract is signed (and we have established so we are at huge risk i guess). From them on, the PM seems to run the programme the way he sees fit. I was just wandering the ’correct’ way to handle this. I keep telling the directors that things need to change (our companies are making huge losses in todays market for this very issue).

I am confused.

Lets say, for example, we had a finish start link between a concrete deck and the brickwork. Lets say we had a curing period of 20 days to the start of the brickwork. Then we start the brickwork on day 10, shouldnt i progress it to start on day 10, thereby be are ahead of programme.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for replying.

I do make changes as and when they occur, but some things you cant change. For example, you cant start your ceilings (and thus your finishing trades) when the structure isnt watertight (for example and it is an iformation issue of the roof structure) especially in the rainy months. So, in this situation, when the PMs say you can work elsewhere (which you can) but the delay to that area affects the sectional completion and is subject to penalties, what then? Are you obliged to double up resources in such a resource scrapped market? What if you cant get your subbies to work faster?

I have a question (sorry a bit long) for you smart, crazy people.

We (a large contracting company) are involved with a bunch of ’project managers’ (and i use this term loosely) on various of our majour projects. They are more like watch dogs and couldnt manage their way out of their shower....

We develop a detail programme and supply an information required scheudle (arent we nice) for them to manage (which they royally screw up). I mean none of this is rocket science. Anyways, they have no control over the design team and try to push the delays consistently back onto us. We are constantly at logger heads and they are about as unbiased as our politians (dont let me go there).

Anyways, the question i ask, is that when we supply them a cause and effect, they take our programme, which they get electronically to my dismay, and they adjust it to suit themselves (changing logic, links etc)

Firstly, can they do this?

Secondly, since the programme looks vastly different to the baseline programme, what is the contractual programme? the one we submitt monthly (electronically). I obviously change links and things when we are changing our sequencing and to accomodate actual working conditions. This is very gray to me and they insist we use the baseline (which we do), they then decide what links they want to modify and basically cut our claim down to nothing. What is the correct method of doing this?

All i can say is HELP US ALL!!!!!!

Hi, hope you are doing fine. Need your guidance once again. I have to prepare a claim for time extension for the contractor. I will use the Impacted as Planned analysis. The issue is that four months after project start the baseline was revised. For several activities, actual start and finished were included and some dependencies were changed. I am confused that which baseline should be considered in the analysis, the original or the revised one.

Best regards

Nadim

Hi Nadim

1. Yes - some products are better than others - I use PowerProject rather than P3. Microsoft Project is lightweight - as is Suretrak.
2. They are:
Impacted as Planned - Use for ongoing delays for work in progress
As Planned v As Built - Use for sub-contract works sandwiched between othe trades
Time Impact - Use for forensic delay analysis but only if the As Built Records are up to the task.
Collapsed as Built - Don’t even think about it.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Nadim

Darren will probably tell you the same.

There is no formal qualification to be a delay analyst.

Some of the things you need to know are:

1. How to build things.
2. How to work the software.
3. Which of the 4 analysis methods are applicable to the situation & which to avoid.
4. How the project contract terms will guide you to the choice in 3 above.
5. How good the records are.
6. Do you believe what you are being told.
7. How do you apply the rules of concurrency.

You can read any number of books and articles but until you have done it yourself and faced a tribunal you will never know if you can do it or not.

I am fortunate in that I started delay analysis 10 years ago before the SCL protocol in 2002.

Since then things have got to be very formalised and complex.

There is no harm in giving it a try.

Start as a junior in a claims consultancy and if you can learn how to do 1 to 7 above in a year or two then you are well on your way.

Best regards

Mike Testro

My Mathematics degree is paying large dividends.

And to think that I once wanted to be a theoretical physicist!

BTW,

Neil Armstrong was the American Astronaut that first landed in the moon sometimes in 1969.

I was then a small 7 year old boy, laying in our bermuda lawn, watching the moon if indeed the American astronauts landed in the moon.

That what he said: "ONE SMALL STEP IS A GIANT LEAP FOR MANKIND

Somehow we have our own small steps that may lead us or leap from our present situation

Stuart,

I told you to stop quoting my CV!!

Regards,

Darren

Sorry Charleston,

I believe you need to have a formal forensic claims degree and a least 10+ years analyst experience to work in the field of forensic claims.

Although I think I heard of one case when a planning engineer became a forensic claims analyst, but that’s probably just an urban myth.

God forbid they let in any old keyboard jockey with a cowboy engineering degree, I wouldn’t want this exulted discipline to become the new residence of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck!! ;o)

Regards,

Darren

WOW guys,

I agree with that.

Hmm,

Maybe time to change for a career as forensic claim specialist.

Do you think the world is not enough.

meaning is there room for a newbie like me to join the fun, ehe, work.

Charlie

Answer is simple: Architects and Engineers are just too lazy and/or incompetent that no sane Contractor entrusts them to make a fair or correct determination, therefore the Contractor protects his interests by leading/guiding the Architect or Engineer by doing his work for him!

Besides that, how do you think we claims consultants make an honest crust? Salt of the earth, we are!! ;-)

Cheers,

Stuart

Architects and Engineers,


decision - based on submitted documents?

do you think they will show you the facts?

nay, they sometimes dont know it themselves,

in a short period of time and limited proof,

you will make a decision?

delayed decision on a delay claim,

it rhymes, i love construction ,,,,,

Hi Mike,

Confirms my view of Architects!! (and FIDIC Engineers not far behind!!)

Cheers,

Stuart

Hi Andrew,

Yes - how true!! ;-)

I have only once seen a situation where the Contractor having failed to provide a proper SIS to claim his EoT, the Client went about and produced a SIS to demonstrate that the Contractor’s claim was crap! (Guess which side I was working for? Answers on a post card please.....!!)

Mmmmm.....quiet day in the office now that the Dutch are out of the European Champs. ;-)

Ronaldo,
Whilst I agree with Andrew that it is up to the Contractor to provide sufficient information for the Engineer to make his determination, and not necessarily the Contractor’s task to prove entitlement, in most complex cases the Contractor will nevertheless demonstrate by way of a Schedule Impact Study that he is entitled to an excusable delay. (Whether that excusable delay is also compensable is a different matter).

The Contractor’s Schedule Impact Study will more than likely be predicated on the (not unreasonable) belief by the Contractor that since he is pursuing his claim (as a Claimant) then the onus is on him to demonstrate that his case is supportable. The Contractor will doubtless consider that his Schedule Impact Study is indeed "sufficient information" for the Engineer to make his determination, whilst simultaneously setting out his contractual entitlement to same.

The Engineer, of course, may determine that the Schedule Impact Study is flawed, in which case his determination will reflect the flawed Study and the Contractor will have shot himself in the foot!

Cheers,

Stuart

That’s FIDIC, which is somewhat more strictly worded than most standard forms - it expressly asks for a fully detailed claim to be sent from the contractor and the contractor to keep contemporary records - but it is still up to the Engineer to make his own determination on the information provided, not the contractor to prove it.

Providing full details and particulars, (contemporary records), is not the same as having to prove your claim. Admittedly most contractors try to however and most Engineers think it is the contractors job to do so beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case of FIDIC (later editions) and the 28 days - it is not giving notice of the claim that time bars you. If you don’t follow up a notice with information then:

Cl20 Engineer..... take into account the extent to which the failure has prevented or prejudiced proper investigation of the claim ......

Rolando,

Interesting thought - however it is THE JOB of the ENGINEER to make HIS determination of the extension of time due, not very often the job of the contractor to prove his entitlement although some contracts may be worded this way.

Normally the contractor is ONLY obliged to provide such information that is reasonably required in order for THE ENGINEER to make his decision.

The standard of proof required is also "on the balance of probabilities" and not "beyond reasonable doubt".

David,

The secret lies in research!

Research all relevant documents and talk to everyone you can to find out the answers to your question; the answers are not to be found in your computer!

Talk to site staff, especially to the subcontract manager or equivalent; talk to the subcontractor himself - he will know your answers!

Check correspondence, minutes of meetings and other documents to find out what happened in the historical past.

Did the subcontractor send any letters telling you of his problems? Were there difficulties in his suppliers? Did the main contractor hold him up in any way? Did an earlier subcontractor delay his start?

Was the detailed engineering work - if carried out by someone else - completed in time?

You haven’t told us what the subcontractor’s workscope was, but was he installing something (electrical, I&C, mechanical) that required coordination with others?

If you find no answers from these ’external’ sources, then the problem may very well have been caused internally by the subcontractor himself; did he provide enough labour resources?; were materials ordered in time?

It all comes down to hard graft and research to find the truth. One tip - do not assume anything; chances are you will be wrong and will be severely embarrassed if your guesses make the wrong accusations!

Hope this helps.

Stuart