A Contractor is installing to works to agreed scope. Due to restrictions on the project, they are unable to achieve all the requirements of a Sectional Completion (SC) date set criteria. This has informally been agreed between parties. (the first issue - this should have been formally agreed).
The Contractor is then delayed a year on these remaining items, meaning in theory they were unable to meet the FULL requirements of the SC date until this point.
The programme’s submitted (and Accepted) shows the Planned Completion date as achieved on the earlier date, despite not factually correct.
Should the PM have certified [partial] completion of the SC date on the early date, and raised a CE based upon the Contractor not being able to complete their works?
The PM states that given the [accepted] programme shows the SC date has been achieved, it was mutually agreed between all parties that it was achieved on the earlier date. The Contractor is now defending their position [of time] associated with the SC date.
I note CL.30.2 states the PM is to certify within one week of completion - however, this is referring to a Key Date, not an SC Date. Does this still apply?
Essentially the SC date was partially met on date “X”, but not fully completed until date “Y” due to a client delay. The Contractor is not arguing for associate costs, merely time. Is this reasonable?
Should the PM have instructed a change of defined scope of the SC/ Takeover of the works (Date “X”), and subsequently agreed on the actual date of completion a year later? (Date “Y”)?
Is the PM duty bound to Certify completion of an SC date?