A part of requested time extension has been recently granted and want to make a prolongation claim now under clause 42, but i have no relevant record again to quantitify and and then evaluate cost impact due to idling of manpower/machinary deployed? I reckon that I will have to make a comparasion of planned and actual turnovers and differential in deployment in both cases. Your advice is sought
2 Likes
Claims for prolongation costs under FIDIC Red Book should be based on “Cost” which is a defined term of the contract at Clause 1.1.(G)(i)
Under 42.2 the Contractor is able to claim an extension of time and cost, but there is no reference to profit.
The definition of cost and the substantiation requirements under Clause 53.3 indicate that the Contractor should base their claim on the actual cost incurred as a result of the delay suffered including overhead but excluding profit.
The level of proof required is subjective and needs to be sufficient to convince the Engineer that the costs incurred are valid and in assessing this the Engineer may in part be guided by any evidential requirements set out in the governing law of the contract.
Clearly records of the actual manpower / machinery used would be suitable for this but if these are not available then some form of comparison between planned and actual costs for the works may be the only course of action. If this approach is to be adopted then you will need to consider whether any element in the variance between planned and actual costs is due to any fault or failure of the Contractor, such as an under estimation of the original resources, and / or any costs already recovered under variations.
The key thing is to provide as much compelling evidence as possible to support the claim.
Learning point for the future to ensure that records are kept. The appraoch seems logical perhaps the questions to ask are.
1.But for…the event
2. Because of …the event
The impact was XYZ