The Contractor’s previous revision of the programme was accepted. The Works Information required X number of manholes to be built, but due to poor information from the designers, the number of manholes increased.
The Contractor has made an assessment of the increase in quantity and in this new version of the programme they are now stating that works completed a few months ago actually took longer. In other words Revision 2 said for Section A, the completion of manholes took 10 days. In Revision 3 they have split the activity into two items - Original works scope say 9 days and additional works say 3 days, totally 12 days. This contradicts Rev 2 where they stated it took 10 days.
Can this Revision not be accepted as it is unrealistic? It appears the Contractor is trying to apply for more time than actually utilised.
Related to the above, it was reported on the contractors programme that say for Section A, works were completed on 5 June 2016. Follow on Contractors have accessed this area and have found some works to be incomplete, which will affect the handover to the client. As such the Contractor returned and completed the unfinished works.
On further investigation Areas B, C and D have also not been completed, as previously reported by the Contractor on his programme.
Can the Contractor be requested that in his new revised programme to reflect the new completion dates, taking into effect the works that were not done and not noticed by the Employer at the time Rev 2 of the programme was accepted?