Skip to content
ProjectControls.com
Forensic Claims Analysis

Progress of the works

In the Open Standard
David WaddleMember for 23 years 8 months
Created
2
1
0
When a contractor makes a claim for an extension of time against the designer (architect/engineer), the response is very often the standard ’you (contractor) didn’t have adequate resources on site’ or ’according to my diary on [whatever date/week/month] you didn’t have any bricklayers on site, therefore this delayed the works, not the issue of information’.

How do you respond to this? Is the designer correct to take this approach?

David
Save Follow Follow forum Report
Reply New topic

2 replies

Oldest first
  1. 0
    Charleston-Joseph Orbe ·
    #1
    David,

    The information is insufficient.

    Anyway we will consider a case wherein the lack of information in a particular area prevent you to employ additional workers to work in that particular area originally plan.

    The point here David is the prevention by the client for you to work in a particular area as originally plan because of lack of information. Please take note of the events "the prevention for you to work due to lack of information from the client".

    This is a ground for extension of time, prevention by the client for you to work.

    Cheers
    Report
  2. 0
    Andrew Flowerdew ·
    #2
    David,

    You reply by writing to the Architect / Engineer a polite letter reminding him of his responsibilities to evaluate any application for an eot in a fair and impartial manner taking all circumstances PROPERLY into consideration.
    Report

Log in or join to reply

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

Log inJoin free

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