(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.
Hi All,
Can I request the opinion of the experts for the below claim situation.
1. The Contractor is in delay and beyond the Contract Completion Date.
2. In the mean time, there is a delay event from Employer (for eg: permission of Power). But even after the closing of Employer delay event (within the contract completion date), the Contractor is still not ready to receive the power because of its delay. Therefore at present the Employer event is not in the Critical Path.
In this case can the Contractor claim for the Employer delay event, by saying that the Employer didn't provide the PERMISSION OF POWER as per the baseline.
In my opinion the Contractor cannot claim it.
What I am thinking to do is as follows;
a. Update the schedule with data date (permission of power by employer date as per baseline). Check the completion date. Defenitely it will give a date beyond the Contract date, because of the Contractor delay. say 31.03.2015
b. Insert a fragnet of Employer delay in the same program (with same data date). It should show the same date 31.03.2015 because the event is not in the CP.
c. Update the schedule with data date as Employer Event Closure. If the Completion date is beyond 31.03.2015, the Contractor is in further delay.
Regards
Kannan
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Hi Kannan
That is correct.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the reply.
The days I have mentioned were only to show the example.
As per your explanation, the Contractor should pay the penalty for the 20 days, dducting the prolongation cost of 30 days which they are entitled. I hope I understood it clearly.
Best Regards
Kannan
Hi Kannan
I had to plot out your scenario on a programme to visualise it - you do not seem to have taken account of normal calendars.
What you have described is not concurrency in either cause or effect.
The delay events are sequential and do not occupy the same time frame and each have different causation on delay.
Therefore in my opinion the first employer delay of 30 calendar days will generate an EoT with costs of 30 calendar days awarded to the contractor.
The second Contractor delay of 20 calendar days will generate a delay to task 3 of 22 calendar days which will allow the employer to deduct LAD's.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the reply to my previous claim scenario. Can I get a reply for the below scenario related to the prolongation cost?
I understand that in a situation of concurrent delay, where the Employer delay is through the path1 and the Contractor delay is through path 2, which drives the project completion; then the Contractor is only entitled for EOT, but no prolongation cost.
But what will be the case if the Emploer and Contractor delay occurs in sequence in the one and only critical path, which shift the contract completion date, for eg: as follows
Baseline
Act1: 01/Jan to 31st Jan; Act 2: 01/Feb to 28/Feb; Act 3: 01/Mar to 31/Mar
Employer delay event
Act 1 completed on time
Act 2: 01/Feb A to 15/Feb (act stops due to client delay-30 days); restarts on 15/Mar and completes on 31/Mar
Act3: 01/Apr to 30/Apr
Based on this, the Contractor is entitled for EOT 30 days and Prolngation Cost 30 days
Contractor delay event
Act 1 & 2 completed as above
Act 3: 01/Apr A to 20/May; 20 days delay from Contractor
Based on the above, is the Contractor still entitled for prolongation cost for 30 days? or 10 days (30-20)? or not at all entitled?
If the Contractor delay is 30 days or more; then what would be the situation?
Thanks
Best Regards
Kannan
Hi Mike,
Thanks.. and its now very clear to me.
Regards
Kannan
Hi Sathish,
e.e
Thanks for the reply.
Yes, the delay of the Emplyer will affect the critical path and the original contract completion date.
Regards
Kannan
Hi Kannan
Yes you are using an Impacted as Planned analysis method and yes you are correct in your scenario. EoT awarded to 28th but no costs.
To change it to a Time Impact analysis you have to add progress to the schedule just before the impact of the event - but that won't change the delay caused by the late power.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Kannan,
How did the Employer delay Event affect the critical path ( CP existing at that period of time)? That will give the answer. If there is no impact on the CP then Contractor is not eligible for EOT . This is my view.
regards
satish
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the reply.
What I understood from your reply is that the Contractor can claim the EOT for the Employer delay, regardless of the delay done by the Contractor.
In order to calculate this delay we have to assume that there is no delay from the Contractor and then incorporate the Employer delay event. For eg: with the Contractor delay and Emploer delay completion date is 31.03.2015 (driven by Contractor delay). Next assuming that no Contractor delay and incorporating the Emploer event which gives a date 28.02.2015.
This means the Contractor can claim from the contract completion date up to 28.02.2015 and delay of 30 days from the Contractor (up to 31.03.2015).
Is the above method is correct?.
If the above method is correct, when we assume there is no delay from the Contractor it sems like we are using the Impacted As Planned. I am not sure, may be I am thinking too much.
Is there any books or articles which shows different case scenarios of delays?
Thanks
Kind Regards
Kannan
Hi Kannan
In the situation you describe the contractor is entitled to an EoT for the part of the delay caused by late power connection but no loss and expense.
This is based on the "prevention principle" where a party to a contract cannot gain benefit from his own default.
Most jurisdictions will support this position including UAE and Qatar based on their "unjust enrichment" clauses in their civil codes.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies