Further to a previous question which centered on the PM instructing the Supervisor to raise incomplete works as Defects. We would be grateful for your view on the following;
The incomplete works (which have now been raised as Defects due to lack of access) are on the programme, however because we are not separately showing the incomplete works as Defects the PM has rejected our programme.
The PM wants to see all Defects listed on the programme (as stated in the contract). We have responded stating that we will only show the Defects which have the potential to affect programme. Despite this the programme has been rejected. (We have approx. 100 open defects, the majority of which are minor and will not have an affect on programme).
I assume we could follow the previous advice and raise an additional EWN to clarify that we are not going to duplicate or extend our administration?
Your conjecture rgds relationship problems is correct and we have reached a point where we are trying to protect ourselves from the contract being used against us. Hence why we were looking at Cl 10 previously.