A Subcontractor was provided a programme at initial tendering stage and signed the agreed (12 month) contract in keeping with this programme.
During the course of works the Subcontractor submitted 3 week look ahead programs which weren’t responded to by the client,
The Subcontractor also issued their global program 5 months into the contract ( to which the Contractor doesn’t accept ) and only responded 10 weeks after submission,
The Subcontractor has requested an extension of time and to date the Contractor has replied that the initial volume of works areas have now increased by 15% and the deadline date remains the same,
As no access was given in any of the areas within to original tender programme nor the program supplied by the Subcontractor (how can the subcontractor compile a CE to coincide with the looses incurred to date )
This is a great question to play “spot the errors” with.
Can I summarise with a list of errors:
- There is no such thing as a global extension of time claim
- Contractor shouldn’t give the Subcontractor a programme - Subcontractor should create their own programme in line with the Contractors requirements
- Three week look ahead programmes are not the same as issuing a full programme for acceptance.
- Not sure what a global programme is but assume it is a “full” programme and that should not take until month 5 to issue
- Contractor should have responded with acceptance/non-acceptance and Subcontractor should have chased
- there is no such thing as an “extension of time” - you need to show what the effect of individual compensation events has been on planned Completion on the Accepted Programme.
- There is no such thing as a deadline date that can not be moved.
You have no choice but to go back to the original programme and try to justify what the effects of individual compensation events has been progressively on the programme.
Easy to say now but neither party should have allowed to get into this state.