Guild of Project Controls: Compendium | Roles | Assessment | Certifications | Membership

Tips on using this forum..

(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.

Processing time extensions is changing due to the automated "workflow" systems

1 reply [Last post]
John Reeves
User offline. Last seen 5 days 20 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 10 May 2013
Posts: 162
Groups: None

processing Time Extensions in "workflow systems" is different than our previous methods at various agencies. The problem of having to quantify and say y/n and how much for a delay when approving the money and change.  In less rigid systems the contractor might say Yes, or TBD, “retain our rights” and the Change Order would get approved.  With "workflow systems" we have to approve or not approve the days at the time.  Most other projects both the contractor and the owner would "wait to see how the job goes" to award days (in the midwest not know how late into the season you can work plays into it.) and then award it after a phase or in Winter.  This works because there are commonly so many concurrent delays and this way you know how long it actually took.  But if you have to give them 15 Days for example because it is on the critical path that cannot take into account pending or possible concurrent delays or future events that would bring it back. There is a further complication on the arguable issue that there can be concurrent delays in different windows of time – due to competing paths.  This would be a problem if we “payed” for the first delay, and then would not have to, it would be hard to "unclaim" those days later - in particular if the contractor only took 5 days for which we payed for 15 - or vicaversa. Yes its better to resolve it and avoid "constructive acceleration" but I used to work or contractors - we would generally beat the days we had claimed.  That can be fair, and it may not be that big of a deal but I can see the schedule issue dragging the change orders out.  Maybe this will be better, contractors are generally slow with TIA’s – maybe this will speed that up.  (I have heard that they get around this at some agencies by making them “claim” the delay days first & seperately, – this sounds like a long time, I guess they could do a proceed order, but I do not know how this works = would they say yes to delay but claim 0 days until the claim is complete? Or no and claim elsewhere?)

Second problem, only high dollar amounts go to the top and other agencies, but any Subst. Cpl date changes have to go to the top - that means on big jobs there might be changes of 2-3 days a couple times a month and that might be too many change notices to go all the way to Top Mgt.  Again they can hold them, but will drag out the co process.  Do you decide on approved delay days before approving change orders?


Rodel Marasigan
User offline. Last seen 9 hours 16 min ago. Offline
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 1639

If the change order request has a delay claim the answer is “Yes” and the contractor should include the EOT claims conforming with the contract requirement to assess the claim if valid or not. If the delay notice does not have delay claim, then “No” and the change order can be assess and approved with 0 delay claim.