Skip to content

Concurrent Delays wrt EoT’s

Martin CorkillMember for 23 years 3 months
Created
8
2
0
Hi all,

I’m new to these forums, but not to the website or the planning profession. I’ve had a good read through here today and downloaded the SCL Delay Protocol document. In there it states (point 9) "Where contractor delay to completion occurs or has effect concurrently with employer delay to completion, the contractors concurrent delay should not reduce any EOT due".

I disagree with this statement completely... say for example a contractor is 4 months behind programme when they discover that an activity can’t take place as planned due to design / co-ordination issues. An instruction is issued by the employer to make the relevant changes due to co-ordination / design, which then impacts the end date by an additional 3 weeks (hypothetically).

Now, bearing in mind that if the contractor were on time in the first place, this issue would have been picked up 4 months earlier and probably had no impact to the project comopletion date, but according to the SCL Delay Protocol document, the contractor would be entitled to claim for 4 months and 3 weeks EOT ? That doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.

8 replies

Oldest first
  1. 0
    Mk Tse ·
    Excuse me, may I know which web site can download the document.
    Without reading the document, it seems there is some grey area. Like ’consolidated’ EOT or claim on dollar side rather EOT.
    The practice, assess concurrent delay is a hardship. To identify which is the critical and all the associated influence. The ’which’ may be a breakdown of activity. Oh! much to discuss.
  2. 0
    Forum Guest ·
    I got it from : http://www.eotprotocol.com/downloadlogin.php I registered for a temporary username that expires on Sunday - Username : blinding Password : light
  3. 0
    Mk Tse ·
    Thanks.
  4. 0
    Martin Corkill ·
    No problem... it makes for some interesting reading... also has some good topics for discussion.
  5. 0
    Uri Shachar ·
    Your interpretation of the protocol is wrong. In your example, the contractor would have been granted an EOT of 3 weeks, not 4 months and 3 weeks.
  6. 0
    Mark Lomas ·
    The Protocol has its supporters and its detractors. I think the SCL has its own forum dedicated to debating the protocol. So you may wish to browse the points raised there. Some of our own PP members have also raised concerns about the Protocol in these forums.
  7. 0
    Forum Guest ·
    Mark,
    Thanks for your respond. Could you please provide the link to this forum?
  8. 0
    Roger Gibson ·
    The link is www.eotprotocol.com.

    Roger Gibson

Log in or join to reply

ProjectControls.com is free to join. Members can post questions, reply, vote and follow discussions.

Existing members: your original username and password still work. Forgot password?