Time Impact Analysis & Case Law
In the Open Standard
A. F.Member for 23 years 5 months
- Created
- 1
- 2
0
Hi,
Time Impact Analysis (TIA) appears to be the favoured method of analysis by the SCL Protocol and cases such as Great Eastern Hotel.
My understanding is that TIA retrospectively takes account of both client and contractor delays as the project progressed.
However, for a JCT contract the case of Henry Boot v. Malmaison states that where there are two concurrent delays then the contractor is entitled to an EOT for the period of client delay notwithstanding the current effect of other events (i.e. contractor delays).
In such a situation where you have a JCT contract and delays caused by both the client and contractor have occured, then surely TIA should not be the favoured method to use as the contractor should be granted the EOT regardless of any client delays (providing he can prove that they had a critical effect).
In such a situation would it not be better to use the ’impacted as planned’ method?
Have I missed something here?
Cheers,
Tom.
Time Impact Analysis (TIA) appears to be the favoured method of analysis by the SCL Protocol and cases such as Great Eastern Hotel.
My understanding is that TIA retrospectively takes account of both client and contractor delays as the project progressed.
However, for a JCT contract the case of Henry Boot v. Malmaison states that where there are two concurrent delays then the contractor is entitled to an EOT for the period of client delay notwithstanding the current effect of other events (i.e. contractor delays).
In such a situation where you have a JCT contract and delays caused by both the client and contractor have occured, then surely TIA should not be the favoured method to use as the contractor should be granted the EOT regardless of any client delays (providing he can prove that they had a critical effect).
In such a situation would it not be better to use the ’impacted as planned’ method?
Have I missed something here?
Cheers,
Tom.
1 reply
Oldest first- 0Andrew Flowerdew ·A.F
The SCL Protocol does recognise this - 1.4.5 "The Employer Risk Event should be analysed first."
At a given update, by impacting the Employer event before the Contractor event, the effect of the Employer event will be seen and not masked by a Contractor delay - the result will therefore concur with Malmaison.
But it also says in 1.4.7 "Analyses should be carried out for each event separately and strictly in the sequence in which they arose..." (repeated elsewhere in the Protocol)
They are actually both right, but admittedly it could be clearer.
If the above is not done (Employer first), then you would have to inspect the results and manually find those events that might entitle the Contractor to a further EoT.
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?