We are involved in contract which has been the subject of delay, a CE has been notified and agreed. Our assessment includes all of the staff that were present on site when the delay occurred and the same staff profile which is intended to remain on the project for the whole duration.
The PM has reduced the number of staff claimable in our assessment on the basis that, whilst it is agreed that the critical path has been delayed, the staff which have been removed from the assessment were not delayed in the areas they were working at the time.
We disagree with this approach for the reasons set out in the first paragraph, above. The staff in question are not purely on the project to deliver one section and the fact that the overall project has been delayed means that we will incur additional Defined Cost for the individuals claimed, as they will be on the project for longer than envisaged.
Would I be correct in saying that the PM is happy to pay direct cost i.e. Subcontractor / Labour, Equipment etc… in the area where the delay has occurred but is not prepared to pay for Project Management staff. say a QS, PM, Site Manager etc… ?
If so, The PM’s approach would be incorrect providing you can demonstrate this via a programme.
The PM is willing to pay for all the staff which he perceives is related to the E.o.T, but is claiming that the rejected staff were in an area which was not affected by the delay. The reality is that the staff in question are required on the project for the full duration and are not just required to manage the elements of works which is unaffected by the delay.
Understood, in which case, providing you can demonstrate that the Staff have been impacted as a result of the delay, the costs associated can be, and should be assessed as part of your Compensation Event.
It doesn’t seem there is any disagreement regarding the delay, just who / what is included, which should be cleared up with some collaborative discussion & debate.