Contractor’s delays

Hi Ahmad

The rule in the Uk is that if a contractor is in culpable delay of say 60 days and at the same time the Employer causes a delay of 5 days then the contractor is entitled to an EOT of 5 days on the original contract end date.

The contractor will get relief of LAD’s for the five days but will not recover any overhead costs because his own delay is dominant.

For ongoing work the Impacted as Planned method is the only one that can be used.

But beware the contractor’s programme is not rigged to maximise any such impact.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Mike

Many thanks for your reply.
how the contractor delay would be presented on the IAP method?
I mean how the gap on the Gantt chart would be explained (i.e. instruction came after 65 days!? (1 month +5days)). the IAP will not consider the progress or the delay of the contractor!

Hi Ahmed

The Impacted As Planned method can only be used when work is in progress.

The baseline programme therefore should be adjusted for completed work before the delay is impacted.

The SCL protocal says that only employers delays should be impacted and that contractors delays should be ignored.

Personally I think the SCL is wrong on this point because you will never be able to demonstrate concurrency.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Mike

So in this matter the contractor is benefits from his own delays due the ignorant of such change came from the engineer/the client.
I’m just wondering, when I read some courts cases they consider sometime the baseline programme as a contractual documents and sometimes are NOT. being the facts that baseline programme is sometime considered as a LIVE documents therefore its non-contractual document.
however, I feel its must someway that IAP must deal with the live programme rather being impacted on a static progarmme

Kind Regards
Ahmad

Hi Ahmed

"So in this matter the contractor is benefits from his own delays due the ignorant of such change came from the engineer/the client".

I am sorry but I do not understand the point you are making here.

No delay analysis system would allow the Contractor to benefit from his own delays.


Regarding your second point - the status of the programme depends entirely on the words in the contract.

If the programmes is set as a Contract Document then any change to the programme by default of either party is a breach of contract.

It pays to remeber that the EoT clauses in any contract are there to protect the Employers right to extract LAD’s from the Contractor if he delays the works.

As I said before IAP can only be used where work is in progress.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Mike
much Appreciated for your knowledge share
my first point is in response to your post "The SCL protocal says that only employers delays should be impacted and that contractors delays should be ignored"
Sorry,I couldn’t get this point

Kind Regards
Ahmad

Ahmad,

Depends whether you are talking about time or money.

English Law:

Time, (EoT), concurrent contractor delays do not prohibit or reduce the contractor’s entitlement to an EoT so therefore can be ignored, (although I would not totally ignore them).

Money for employer delay, concurrent contractor delays do prohibit or reduce the contractor’s entitlement to money so cannot be ignored.

The order that employer and contractor delays are impacted may also be relevant depending on whether you are calculating time or money and the method used.

Hi Andrew

"concurrent contractor delays do not prohibit or reduce the contractor’s entitlement to an EoT"

Provided of course that they do not impact further delay.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Ahmad

If you go to the website of the Society of Construction Law (SCL) and download the 2002 protocol you will find in section 4 a treatise on Delay Analysis.

This was an early attempt to codify good planning practice but a lot of its findings - such as the use of IAP method - is to my mind now out of date.

Good luck in your research.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Mike,

There would never be any entitlement to an EoT for a contractor delay, concurrent or otherwise but the existence of a concurrent contractor delay won’t prohibit or reduce the contractor’s entitlement, (contract wording permitting), to an EoT equal in duration to the delay arising out of an employers event.

Gentlemen
I appreciate your feedback.
so the contractor’s concurrent delays will not reducing his entitlement for EOT if we using IAP. however, at the end of the project and we go for collapsed as built analysis these delays will drive the critical bath (correct me if I’m wrong).
the thing is why SCL protocol/or/English law do not consider contractor concurrent delays to reduce his EOT entitlement. forgive me I’m not that law experience guy

Kind Regards
Ahmad

Hi Ahmad

In a forensic delay situation the Colapsed As Built (As Built But For)method has lost credibility because it is difficult - if not impossible - to put a reasonable critical path on an as built programme.

There have been a few cases in English law and one in Scottish law that has codified the position on concurrent delays.

If there are concurrent delays and the Employers delay lasts longer then the contractor gets an EOT for the whole delay period - but no costs for his delay.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Ahmad,

"the thing is why SCL protocol/or/English law do not consider contractor concurrent delays to reduce his EOT entitlement. forgive me I’m not that law experience guy"

An EoT protects the contractor from paying the employer damages for a delay to the completion of the project beyond the original or subsequently extended completion date. Therefore, irrespective of his own delays, if the contractor is delayed from completeing on time then he gets an EoT - otherwise the employer would gain from his own wrong by being able to charge damages for a period when the employer himself caused delay to completion.

So contractor gets EoT for protection and employer can not gain from his own delay. Pretty fair and reasonable.

Also, an EoT does not automatically entitle the contractor to any money. The contractor has to find the correct grounds on which to claim this. The usual English law starting position if there is employer/contractor concurrent delay is that there is no entitlement at all to money during that delay period.

Other positions exist such as the contractor is entitled to be paid whatever he can demostrate he has spent as a result of the employer delay only, (SCL position and more along American principles).

Therefore the contractor does not gain from his own delay but -and there’s always a but - to apply concurrent delay you have to define concurrent delay - and that’s often where the arguments start!!!!!!!!

Andrew/Mike
I got the picture right now. many thanks for your help

Kind Regards
Ahmad