Interim EoT + Further EoTs

Hi Sajid

If nothing has changed to make your interim application invalid you should use the interim submission to add the new events to present an up to date submission.

If you start again then any new details may be contradicted by the earlier ones and open to challenge.

Good luck & best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Mike
I was right in hoping to get first reply from you.

Using an old one make my life much easier.

Thanks & regards.

Hi Sajid

Not so much of the "old one" I will be only 65 in June.

Best regards

Mike Testro

haa haa haa

BTW, I was referring to my old EoT picture that you suggested to use.

And don’t worry, I am following you religiously, although I will never be able to catch you on "Old one".

Regards

Hi Mike

First, please accept my sincere apologies on not wishing you an advance Happy Birthday.

Second, I have a lot of site co-ordination issues with the Employer’s other contractors. They come one day & excavate the whole are like an atom bomb fropped there.

We had a lot of correspondeces shared with the Employer but, they always shifted the responsibilities on us by referring sub clause 4.6 (co-operation). But, as a matter of fact we got delayed on number of activities.

Now my question is
The co-ordiantion issue is not a delay event in itself but the consequence is.

How should I append this in my TIA?

Regards

Hi Sajid

Co-ordination of different contractors on the same project is the only time when an As Planned v As Built method of analysi is valid.

Presumably there will be an activity in your programme for the other contractor’s work - this is the "As Planned" section.

For visual impact place another activity over the top of the As Planned and give it the name "........ As Built"

Give a bright red colour code and link up in the same way as the planned activity.

You will now demonstrate direct cause and effect of the As Built activity.

It appears however that what happened with the Excavation is more of a Disruption rather than Delay.

What you have to demonstrate is that a planned orderly sequence of excavation would have allowed you to progress your work on programme and at cost.

I would suggest that you set up a sub programme showing the changed work pattern caused by the excavation being done in one hit.

Then link the start and End to the top level activities.

The co-operation clause is only valid if co-operating doesnt mean delay or cost to your works.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Mike

First, if I go with the above, then I can not use my TIA that we submitted with our earlier EoT submission.

Second, will it not be too confusing to have two different methods, to calculate entitlement, for two EoTs by the same contractor to the same employer?

Any way to sneak out of this and keep me on the same "old one".

Regards

Hi Sajid

As I said if new events make your original EOT invalid then you do need to start afresh.

There is no problem in using more than one method in a delay analysis -
Impacted As Planned for work in progress
Time Impact analysis for completed work
As Planned v As Built for co-ordination

Please never use the As Built But For method - it is useless.

Just make sure that the events are addressed in strict date order of impact.

Best regards

Mike Testro