As you said that the 15 days are the contractor's default unless proved otherwise. But don't you think than we shall try to apportion the delay of 15 days since the updated schedule already contains the effect of delays caused by both parties?
If you agree with me, what method do you suggest to apportion the delay?
Your scenario states that the progress update caused 15 days delay to the programme.
By definition that delay is the contractor's default unless proved otherwise.
The 10 day delay appears to be a valid EoT event which entitles the contractor to an Extension of time.
Thus we have a concurrency issue where the 10 days EoT is underlined by a 15 day contractor delay (albeit undefined).
This is the inherent fault of a time impact analysis used when work is in progress. The contractor may accelerate future work and recover his delay and further delay events may invalidate the current 10 days delay.
While work is in progress it is a theoretical exercise so everything relies on a final determination when the work is complete.
Another possible interim scenario is that the contractor is ahead of programme - say -5 days on progress and a 15 day employers delay wipes out his hard won advantage for a 10 day EoT.
Remember that concurrency applies to allocation of costs and damages - not extension of time.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
14 years
Member for14 years
Submitted by Ammar Al-Saket on Sun, 2014-03-16 14:24
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi AmmarFirst find the cause
Hi Ammar
First find the cause of the delay - it has to be an employer culpable relevant event - if they do not exist then it is all the contractor's fault.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
14 yearsHi Mike,As you said that the
Hi Mike,
As you said that the 15 days are the contractor's default unless proved otherwise. But don't you think than we shall try to apportion the delay of 15 days since the updated schedule already contains the effect of delays caused by both parties?
If you agree with me, what method do you suggest to apportion the delay?
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi AmmarYour scenario states
Hi Ammar
Your scenario states that the progress update caused 15 days delay to the programme.
By definition that delay is the contractor's default unless proved otherwise.
The 10 day delay appears to be a valid EoT event which entitles the contractor to an Extension of time.
Thus we have a concurrency issue where the 10 days EoT is underlined by a 15 day contractor delay (albeit undefined).
This is the inherent fault of a time impact analysis used when work is in progress. The contractor may accelerate future work and recover his delay and further delay events may invalidate the current 10 days delay.
While work is in progress it is a theoretical exercise so everything relies on a final determination when the work is complete.
Another possible interim scenario is that the contractor is ahead of programme - say -5 days on progress and a 15 day employers delay wipes out his hard won advantage for a 10 day EoT.
Remember that concurrency applies to allocation of costs and damages - not extension of time.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
14 yearsDear Mike,On what bases you
Dear Mike,
On what bases you referred the resposibility of the entire 15 days to the Contractor, he might be responsible for the last 5 days only?
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi AmmarThe 10 days delay is
Hi Ammar
The 10 days delay is the EoT entitlement but no costs
The 5 day delay is the contractor's exposure to LD's
This is why employers prefer a Time Impact Analysis (SCL definition).
Best regards
Mike Testro