NEC3 with Target Cost.

Hi Muhammad

The CA is right when he says that you are obliged to mitigate the effects of a delay event - whoever caused it - - provided that it does not cost you any money.

If work on the critical path is obstructed then no amount of activity off the critical path will solve the problem.

Progress off the critical path will just increase the available float while the critical activiites continue to be delayed.

When he says :

"Obstrution on one activity does no stop you to jump on the next critical item."

Then I would query how many critical paths are there on the programme.

Are there sectional completions with more than one set of milestones and LAD’s?

If not then there should be only one critical path on a properly constructed programme.

Check if there are any constraints that are distorting the logic.

Best regards

Mike Testro.

Thanks Mike,

There are more than one critical paths as for sectional completion dates, there are constrained finish mile stones. But the one section got the delay and has the biggest chunk of overheads attached to that section. Thats why he is resisting the EOT.
There is no hitch with the programme. How a CA can use the argument to push the contractor to next critical activity when even it is less productive to work on that peice of work.

Hi Muhammad

Unless it is clearly written in the contract the CA has no power to instruct you to work uneconomically without payment.

Present a formal delay notice and press for an EoT on the delayed section - go to adjudication if necessary.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Agreed.

Provided you notified client of the delay in good time, can demonstrate that working out of sequence on the next critical activity would have required an increase in target cost, and responded to any RFIs on the matter in a timely fashion, then you would seem to have a good defence.

Cheers,

G