(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.
Gents;
Could you please advise me a valid contractual phrase refering FIDIC to protect the skin of myself.
Sceneraio1 : Approved baseline MEP Programme prepared based on floorwide single access.
Scenerio2: Due to tremendous delay in civil works - 209 calendar days as of 9 February 2016 (total duration for MEP installation completion = 217 calendar days). No complete access was given to any floor as per approved baseline.
Scenerio 3 : Civil contractor revised the access dates in zone wise and vertcally scattered manner. Intially 4 access dates changed to 4 zones x 4 access = 16 Access dates.
Scenerio 4: MEP contractor revised the programme; considering the last access is giving to zone 4 where main elecrical riser, electrical rooms and LV room located. Sequencing changed and durations of activities increased.
Question : Shall civil contractor can claim to use the duration of baseline in the revised MEP completion programme? In this moment baseline is valid benchmark to revise programme; since they changed their sequence in providing access for MEP works.
Thanks
Anil
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Thank you Mr. Mike
Hi Anil
If your access dates are bound into the Sub Contract then any change imposed by the contractor is a breach of contract.
You are not in an EoT situation at all.
The contractor is bound to pay for all loss and expence caused by his breach of contract - it is as simple as that.
Best regards
Mike T.
Thank you Mr. Mike;
Yes, we are nominated Sub-contractor and the contract binds with access dates for MEP installation in each floor. Based on this access dates; we prepared and submitted MEP installation programme and Civil conrtactor approved and all other parties agreed.
Hi Anil
Things to consider.
1. Are you a nominated sub contractor under the FiDIC conditions or an "instructed" "named" sub contractor?
If the former then you are in a much stronger position because the Employer will pay your claim and deduct the money from the Contractor.
2. Is your baseline programme a binding sub contract document?
If yes then the Contractor is in breach of contract and different rules apply.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Thank you Dear Mike.
It is purely a delay from civil contractor (Main contractor). We are nominated MEP contractor; though in terms of sub-contractor under main contract.
As per contract; we are submitting detailed delay particulars in weekly basis. Till now; they were not issued an EOT in black and white. Moreover they issued a revised access date as said before.
Thank you for your feedback and expecting more after case study.
Hi Anil
On a practical level a lot depends on whether the delays to the Civil Contractor can be passed up to the Employer or are they wholly the Contractor's problem.
If the former thenit is best to collaborate and share the gains.
If not then you will have a fight with the contractor.
On the face of what you describe you have a sound case - not just for EoT but prolongation costs and disruption.
You mention FIDIC - are you engaged on the sub-contract form?
Best regards
Mike T.
PS I am moving your thread to the Forensic topic - you will get a better response.
Thank you for the advice.
Contractual Baseline governs until a revision is mutually agreed between MEP and whoever contracted him, maybe a General Contractor, maybe a Contract Project Manager if a prime contractor and not a subcontractor.
In any case the conditions are substantially different and there is a possibility this requires and increase in time and cost.
It takes a woman 9 months to bear a child, nine women cannot bear a child in a month.
Of course the contract shall provide for what to do in such circumstances, but in case of a substantial change a contractor or subcontractor can reject a one sided alternative such as a Change Directive.
It is better if the parts get together and agree for a change in schedule, EOT and cost adjustments if applicable, rather than litigation.
If someone else was late then this is the party that shall be assigned accountability. To use the MEP contractor as a scapegoat is wrong.
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies