Revised Schedule - Impacted Schedule

Thanks for the response. All issues have been agreed and solved prior to 31st of March 2012, thus my contention.  In the impacted schedule dated (30th of November 2011), the issues reflected were plotted to have not been solved. Let's say the issuance of drawings was dated December 21, 2011 in the impacted schedule, however, in the actual it's in March 15. I mean this small things. If i update the schedule (30th of November) to 31st of March, a delay would show. I hope I can explain it better.

EOT or Extension of Time solve issues of contract time but not monetary issues. These are usually analyzed by comparing an updated schedule with a DD at time impact start that does not includes delaying event and another update at same DD that includes the impact events. Can represent an updated Baseline at the DD of the submitted impacted schedule.

• TIA schedules,
• Contractual Baselines and
• Updates

can all have different DD but in any case Updates shall include before its DD all activities as happened and after DD as projected no matter if projected ahead or behind schedule.

The revised schedule shall include all activities as happened before all TIAs as submitted, past dates must match, they are already actuals. The updates not only shall include what happened before all TIAs but also what happened between all TIAs and update DD. The update shall predict any projected delays, predictions that are more up to date than the predictions of old TIAs as predictions of TIAs are not written in stone as if you can predict the future. This seems to me similar to what you are saying, not in conflict but even expressing a bit more.

For what you are saying seems like he did not submitted an update but only re-submitted a TIA schedule with an old DD. There is a 4 months 7 days difference between the TIA DD (30th of November 2011) and the date of "update" submission (April 7th 2012), too much time to be considered a timely delivered update. 

The contract documents shall specify how often he shall submit his updates and this shall be your basis for such request. On the other hand if the contract is lazy with regard to scheduling requirements then maybe he can waive your request.

I agree with you about what to expect from an update and hope my comments can help you to express that he did not submitted and update as requested. Of course this shall be within the contract terms. 

Out of curiosity who is responsible for the issuance of drawings? An activity already delayed over 3 months. Maybe the contractor is confused about how delay impacts are measured and believes updates might waive his right for valid claims. Updates will show all delays Owner and Contractor caused delays that already happened. It is on the contractor interest to put on record actual dates on regular updates otherwise this can prevent him to prove otherwise valid claims. 

Reminds me of a Contractor that submitted the baseline schedule even when the contract did not required a CPM schedule, then he never submitted monthly updates and now he has little acceptable evidence to present his case other than using the weakest of the acceptable methods as here impacted as planned methods are usually rejected by the courts. The contractor should have submitted monthly updates for the record, even when not required by contract. The burden of proof is on the claimant, the Owner just has to stop payments and then the contractor will be the claimant always having the burden of proof. The Owner outsmarted the GC. If he is not submitting updates he is a fool. 

"The revised schedule shall include all activities as happened before all TIAs as submitted, past dates must match, they are already actuals. The updates not only shall include what happened before all TIAs but also what happened between all TIAs and update DD. The update shall predict any projected delays, predictions that are more up to date than the predictions of old TIAs as predictions of TIAs are not written in stone as if you can predict the future. This seems to me similar to what you are saying, not in conflict but even expressing a bit more."

This is spot on. This is my stand that all dates in the TIA submitted before should be actualized. I discussed this with the client and he was also expecting the same.

"For what you are saying seems like he did not submitted an update but only re-submitted a TIA schedule with an old DD. There is a 4 months 7 days difference between the TIA DD (30th of November 2011) and the date of "update" submission (April 7th 2012), too much time to be considered a timely delivered update. "

He submitted the TIA with a completion date agreed by all the parties. But this date is based on the delay events which were resolved later than assumed.

"The contract documents shall specify how often he shall submit his updates and this shall be your basis for such request. On the other hand if the contract is lazy with regard to scheduling requirements then maybe he can waive your request."

The contract specifies they should submit updates on a weekly and monthly basis.

"Out of curiosity who is responsible for the issuance of drawings? An activity already delayed over 3 months. Maybe the contractor is confused about how delay impacts are measured and believes updates might waive his right for valid claims. Updates will show all delays Owner and Contractor caused delays that already happened. It is on the contractor interest to put on record actual dates on regular updates otherwise this can prevent him to prove otherwise valid claims."

The issuance of the drawings is responsibility of the client in the contract. It was delayed by more than 8 months and affected the schedule. Later on, the client acknowledged the delay thus the EOT.

Thanks Rafael. :)