There were Employer’s delays due to the non-availability of a portion of the site covered by obstructions for the contractor to proceed with the works as planned and after the assessment of the Contractor’s claim, submitted only for extension of time, the Engineer granted due extension of time for the period of impact the Employer’s event had on the completion date.
Subsequently, just before the closure of the closure of the completion date, the Contractor claimed the costs for the period of extension of time granted, although there were contractor’s concurrent delays, by delaying works, on his own, within the available site, even until the part site in obstruction was handed over to the Contractor after evicting the obstructions, thus confirming that there was no waiting of the contractor’s resources due to the Employer’s event. The contractor had complied with the contract provisions under Sub-Clause 20.1 by giving the due notices for seeking extension of time and also showing an intent of claiming costs. But, subsequent details for the cost estimates were not provided within the time frame stipulated under Sub-Clause 20.1. The cost claim was made almost at the closure of the completion date.
My questions are:
- Is the contractor entitled to any costs for the idle resources recorded during the period of the Employer’s event (some resources were shown as idle during that period of Employer’s event, for unknown reasons, may be due to contractor’s slowing down the works on certain activities)?
- Despite the concurrent delays, can the contractor be paid time related costs for that period of contract prolongation to compensate the contractor’s additional costs due to site and head office overheads?