I am currently working on an overhead line scheme which requires 100’s of different access requirements on 3rd party land. The contractor had ample opportunity to review the access and way leave requirements prior to commencement and provided a track-way based solution which was accepted.
I am now starting to see claims in and around weather and their effects. We are getting situations that due to the level of rainfall that we have experienced over the winter, the ground has started to saturate and therefore mean that extra track-way and prevention is required to stop damage to the land. The Contractor has raised a claim based around a 1/10 weather event 60.1(13) and the data supplied does seem to support the position that we have had a greater than average level of rainfall.
However, I always worked under the assumption that CL60.1(13) works on the basis that you calculate weather impact by time delay based on the averages of the stated weather station and then apply this to a disruption element to the programme. How do we deal with the consequence of the weather, I have so far raised that this is an event pursuant to CL60.1(12). If this is the case how do I make the assessment of what does and does not fall under additional claims. In my view unless the Contractor has detailed data at time of tender (which they do not have) showing ground water levels and saturation tests and this can be shown to differ from that encountered they do not have a case.