EWN issued by the Contractor that designed gas main route was not achievable due to clashes with drainage. A second EWN was issued 8 days later with the same information but highlighting that gas needs to be installed by 15 days from the date of the second EWN. Works to install gas main were not identified on the Accepted Programme at the time of EWNs and the PMI to change Scope of gas route.
Actual works identified to in a subsequent programme (not accepted yet) show the time required for install is 16 days and commissioning to allow gas switch on a further 5 days. This seems to suggest that the dates from the second EWN were not achievable.
A PMI was issued to change the Scope of the gas route 15 days after the second EWN (23 days after the first EWN)
Correspondence following the PMI said that gas install could commence 8 days after the date of the PMI (this was caveated with note advising further delay to this date may occur due to subcontractor being committed to respond to emergency call-outs for the gas supplier. Delays continued in this manner with final install of gas and commissioning complete some 98 days after PMI.
Contractor is claiming CE for time for the entire period due to change of Scope, which caused them to miss the original planned install date for gas (albeit not shown on any programme).
Is this a valid CE for time under 60.1(1) and should the extended delay be compensated to the Contractor as a result, or as 26.1 does the non-availability of the subcontractor become the responsibility of the main Contractor and therefore should the time claimed for the extended delay not be accepted?
There is an accepted programme to execute the original scope
The PMI to install the gas main was additional scope (and this a CE) was issued after the last accepted programme
A CE was not agreed and implemented, inserted into the programme and then the programme accepted in the time between thr PMI and the EWN.
The specialist subbie was available in a short window and the contractor issued multiple EWN that the PMO as issued couldn’t be done due to clashes with drainage.
The contractor issued to EWN’s which if actioned promptly would have allowed the works be completed in the first window of specialist subcontractor availability.
The delay in resolving the clash with the drainage wasn’t the contractors fault.
The PM didn’t issue assumptions for the contractor to price, which would have allowed the CE be quoted and implemented quickly (which would.have allowed the contractor modify the programme and submit it for acceptance).
The works eventually got done the next time the specialist subcontractor was available after the clash with the drainage was resolved by the PM.
The contractor submitted a quotation based on the defined coat of the additional work plus any effect on planned completion. That quotation being based on records.
If all of the above is true, the contractor did all he could and the PM didn’t react quick enough to keep the costs down despite being warned that he needed to do so.
That being the case, the PM should accept the quotation and change the completion date if his lack of urgency caused a delay to planned completion.
However, if the gas main install was in the original scope, then the PM isn’t responsible for delaying the work as the accepted programme didn’t have the works on it.
The Contractor can claim the work was delayed by the PM when he hadn’t told the PM when he was going to do it in the first place (via the programme).
To clear the point up from the original post that was little ambiguous - The gas main was in the Scope, though the Contractor did not identify it as a task in any programmes issued prior to the PMI instructing the change to the Scope (alternative route), and only added with the Programme submitted with THE CE quotation.
Should “can” in the last paragraph of your second reply say “can’t”