On a project where there have been numerous delay events. The Contractor is in the process of producing the relevant impact assessment programmes as part of the quotations. Initial views suggest the liability for delay sits with the Project Manager, however, the Project Manager believes the opposite.
Whilst the CE process is ongoing, albeit behind on the timescales, a revised programme is due for submission. The Contractor wants to maintain current terminal float values despite it showing negative float, but the Project Manager wants the terminal float set to zero.
What should be the correct way to present Terminal Float within the revised programme? Is it fair to assume it is almost irrelevant as the correct TF values will fall out of the CE process anyway once implemented? The relevant date to focus on is the Planned Completion anyway as that is what the focus of the CE is.
The question both parties need to think about is does the programme fail any of the clause 31.1 tests i.e. is it not practicable for the Contractor, does it not show required information, is it not realistic or does it not comply with the Works Information?
The PM cannot simply reject the programme because they don’t like the fact that it’s showing delay i.e. planned Completion later than the Completion Date. If this is realistic then that’s exactly what the Contractor should be showing. You would expect planned Completion and the Completion Date to move independently of each other as planned Completion is affected on a day to day basis with progress / delays on site whereas the Completion Date is only affected when a compensation event is implemented.
You are right to say the relevant date to focus on is planned Completion as the compensation event procedure deals with the liability for delays to planned Completion.
1 Like