EOT - Covid 19
- Created
- 1
- 4
Contractor has just notified of a claim relating to Covid 19 with a EOT for additional 60 days from the key milestone date. One of the reasons giving by the contractor is that a particular activity which drives the critical path was originally planned for 7 days a week, however with restriction on the number of personnel onsite, the contractor affirm that this particular activity can only be achieved on a 5days working
I have looked through the activity in question and what struck me was that the baseline and the subsequent programme before the delay event did have a 5 days working calendar.
Without going into much effort, can I advise the client to reject the EOT automatically as it does not align with the claim ?
Appreciate any useful advise please.
1 reply
Oldest first- 0Zoltan Palffy ·
if the schedule was always
if the schedule was always based on 5 day work week then saying the plan was work 7 days a week.
How many days a weeks was he working prior to covid19 ? This should be your basis.
I do beleive that a shortage of manpower could and probally did exist but I believe that the EOT should be framed in different manner.
Was there ever and original manpower projection ? IF so how does that compaire to the actual manpower on site.
The 5 vs 7 working days does not appear to be a correct assumption of the original plan.
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?