Contractor Delay

Dear All,

Please see the below scenario.

In the baseline schedule, one of the MEP shop drawings was not included and that particular MEP work (construction activity was not in the Critical Path.

Later in the Project, that particular MEP work got delayed because of the delay of its Predecessor (by the Contractor) and the Project completion showed a delay of 15 days. The Contractor suddently submitted the Shop drawing (now almost mid of Project) and the Engineer took 5 more days to review. The Completion date shifted by 20 days. The Contractor submitted the EOT Claim of 5 days, the Engineer denied it and a dispute originated.

a. Contractor EOT Claim stand:

The Contractor updated the Schedule up to the date, the approval for SD should have obtained from the Engineer. A delay event activity of 5 days incorporated in the Schedule and re-run with the same data date, using the TIA method.

b. Engineer's calculation and determination:

Engineer used the Impacted As Planned method. An activity for SD submittal added in the baseline schedule with the start date similar to other related MEP shop drawings in the schedule. Contract duration for approval + 5 days delay incorporated and link it to the particular MEP work. It didn't make any impact. Engineer concluded that the Contractor is not entitled for EOT as the Contractor didn't submit the SD with a proper planning and moreover the 5 days delay from the Engineer review would not reduce or impact the total float in the activity/project.

In a standard claim analysis, which one of the above should be followed.

Best Regards

Kannan