(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.
Dear All,
Please see the below scenario.
In the baseline schedule, one of the MEP shop drawings was not included and that particular MEP work (construction activity was not in the Critical Path.
Later in the Project, that particular MEP work got delayed because of the delay of its Predecessor (by the Contractor) and the Project completion showed a delay of 15 days. The Contractor suddently submitted the Shop drawing (now almost mid of Project) and the Engineer took 5 more days to review. The Completion date shifted by 20 days. The Contractor submitted the EOT Claim of 5 days, the Engineer denied it and a dispute originated.
a. Contractor EOT Claim stand:
The Contractor updated the Schedule up to the date, the approval for SD should have obtained from the Engineer. A delay event activity of 5 days incorporated in the Schedule and re-run with the same data date, using the TIA method.
b. Engineer's calculation and determination:
Engineer used the Impacted As Planned method. An activity for SD submittal added in the baseline schedule with the start date similar to other related MEP shop drawings in the schedule. Contract duration for approval + 5 days delay incorporated and link it to the particular MEP work. It didn't make any impact. Engineer concluded that the Contractor is not entitled for EOT as the Contractor didn't submit the SD with a proper planning and moreover the 5 days delay from the Engineer review would not reduce or impact the total float in the activity/project.
In a standard claim analysis, which one of the above should be followed.
Best Regards
Kannan
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Thanks Mike...
Best Regards
Kannan
Hi Kannan
Yes - for work in progress.
For a forensic analysis you need to update the programme as well.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the reply.
Is it wrong to use the Impacted As Planned in this case. The SD submittal can be incorporated in the baseline schedule showing the excat date of submittal. The Engineer's contractual review period and the additional 5 days can be included and further linking it to the relevant construction activity. This will give a revised completion date.
I think this can also give the EOT. Is this approach correct?
Best Regards
Kannan
Hi Kannan
So the Contractor takes responsibilty for the first part and the Engineer the second part of the delay.
The two events should be impacted on the date that they occured sepeartely so the each cause and effect can be measured.
The programme should then be progressed before each event.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Mike,
YES, the contractor is responsible for the late submittal of the Shop Drawing. But the Engineer took more than the agreed contractual duration for review.
Best Regards
Kannan
Hi Kannan
Are you saying that the shop drawing was issued later than it should have been and that the contractor was responsible?
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies