We have recently submitted a range of quotations for additional costs (and time) associated with a delay caused by others (non attendance by a statutory undertaker to supervise the works). This was based on information provided by the undertaker outlining its resource constraints, which will delay the project.
This delay is a Client risk under the ECC Option C contract. The PM issued no assumptions in accepting the CE and asking for a quotation for the effect of this information from the undertaker.
However, since the contractor submitted those initial quotations (batch 1), the PM has issued assumptions (which require us to assume no delays will occur) for a further range of CE’s (batch 2) for similar events (in a different section of the project).
In assessing the earlier CE’s the PM has used the new assumptions (batch 2 assumptions), despite not issuing them at the time of the earlier quotations (batch 1). The PM’s assessment now removes any time element for the earlier CE’s and will continue to do so for the remaining CE’s.
I am certain the PM has erred in using later assumptions in assessing earlier CE’s but has been cajoled into this error by the Client in fear of awarding a change in the completion date before the actual delay occurs (This is the clients first project where it has used NEC contracts and cannot get its head around the idea of prospectively awarding time and not having the ability to apply or threaten delay damages).
The question is, has the contractor any alternative recourse to the PM’s incorrect assessment for the first batch of CE’s? other than adjudication.