I believe that the TIA method shows the contractor's entitlement during the project ongoing time period. If the client accepts it that will be the revised completion date/revised baseline. It it agrees earlier, it will benefit the Contractor.
But if we consider the following scenario;
1.after the completion of project, delay analysis was done (agree that it is wait and see approach).
2. Contractor provided the TIA programme, just before the delay event (for eg it happened 1 year back). The remaining works with the delay fragnet shows an extension of time.
3. During the as built programme analysis, the client found that the works are completed earlier, without impacting the project completion.
In this case, is the contractor entitle for EOT? I think that the contractor is not entitled because the delay works didn't affect the project float and completion date. The contractor finished the works earlier without any acceleration request by the client.
One more question. I have undertaken an EOT asessment by adding the delay causing event into the schedule and linking to the impacted activity which resulted a few days entitelment for us.However, Comparing the new critical path with as built schedule is showing that some of the activities actually completed earlier. ( maybe due to some resecuencing or another delay over weekly schedule updates). Are we still entitel for a EOT claim? Can our client take advantage of its hindsight and reject our claim?
Hi Mike,I believe that the
Hi Mike,
I believe that the TIA method shows the contractor's entitlement during the project ongoing time period. If the client accepts it that will be the revised completion date/revised baseline. It it agrees earlier, it will benefit the Contractor.
But if we consider the following scenario;
1.after the completion of project, delay analysis was done (agree that it is wait and see approach).
2. Contractor provided the TIA programme, just before the delay event (for eg it happened 1 year back). The remaining works with the delay fragnet shows an extension of time.
3. During the as built programme analysis, the client found that the works are completed earlier, without impacting the project completion.
In this case, is the contractor entitle for EOT? I think that the contractor is not entitled because the delay works didn't affect the project float and completion date. The contractor finished the works earlier without any acceleration request by the client.
Best Regards
Kannan
Hi EllieThis is the problem
Hi Ellie
This is the problem with an Impacted as Planned Analysis - it does not relate to reality and should only be used for work in progress.
A Time Impact Analysis will give you a more accurate result.
This must start with the first event on the original baseline programme which is updated with progress just prior to the event impact date.
Done like this you are entitled to an EoT for the impacted date - the progressed date determines prolongation costs.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Thanks Mike,One more
Thanks Mike,
One more question. I have undertaken an EOT asessment by adding the delay causing event into the schedule and linking to the impacted activity which resulted a few days entitelment for us.However, Comparing the new critical path with as built schedule is showing that some of the activities actually completed earlier. ( maybe due to some resecuencing or another delay over weekly schedule updates). Are we still entitel for a EOT claim? Can our client take advantage of its hindsight and reject our claim?
Thanks
Hi EllieYou have accelerated
Hi Ellie
You have accelerated the work prematurely.
The normal rule is get the EoT award and then negotiate acceleration.
If you need an EoT now then you should claim it by ignoring the night shift calendar but you will not get any acceleration costs.
Best regards
Mike T.