If you have time to consider this I would appreciate you thoughts :-)
The SCENARIO:
1: A baseline schedule was produced and during the course of the works it was used by way of an Impacted As-Planned analysis to demonstrate delay to the Works and claim an EoT. Let's say the the contract was 2 years long and was due to complete at the end of 2021 with an EoT claim for 4 months pushing the end date to end of April 2022.
2: A secondary baseline (which is perhaps better described as a tentative target schedule with no promises by the Contractor who maintains his right to the claimed [and awarded?1] EoT) is produced by the Contractor which, allowing for the delay claimed, does mitigate some of the delay and pulls the Entitled Completion date back to the end of January 2022... a saving of 3 months on the new Entitled completion date but still a month later than the originally contracted completion date of end of December 2021... Let's say the schedule has a datadate of July 2021.
3: In say September 2021 the Contractor suffered a further delay of 2 months to the Works which he needs to demonstrate to the Client.
The QUESTION(s):
Who owns the mitigation:
- Is the claim impacted on the mitigated schedule with the overall EoT being calculated as 4 months + 2 months with the mitigation being claimed by the Contractor as his since it does not reduce his etitlement
- Is the claim impacted on the mitigated schedule with the overall EoT being calculated as 4 months - 3 months + 2 months with the mitigation being 'owned' by the Client since it is the duty of the Contractor to mitigate (and as such a contractual requirement) OR
- Is the claim impacted on the original yet impacted baseline schedule which already shows an delay of 4 months... thus increasing the Contractors entitlement to 6 months (4+2) thus ignoring the mitigation schedule yet affecting the schedule of work perhaops differently than it would do on the mitigation schedule
Thanks for your thoughts