PM Assumptions to hide delay

We are on a scheme where the Client has a number of delays which are driving the planned date for Completion due to activities they are yet to complete (activities which should have been completed prior to Contract Award), within this delay our design works have prolonged but are within programme float created by the Clients delay.

The PM has issued a number of PMI’s to make assumptions surrounding their delay, the impact of which reduced their delay and now shows our design on the Critical Path and the associated difference between planned date for Completion and the Completion Date being directly resultant to our activities.

I am 100% confident that the Assumptions will result in CE’s under 60.1(17) as the results are completely unachievable but there will already be delay on the programme and these events will start absorbing float from our delay.

The cynic in me would suggest this is a surreptitious attempt to pass off their responsibility for delays but I’m sure that’s not the case.

When notifying the CE under 60.1(17) are we able to assess the impact as at the point of the PMI - as such removing the assumtions and making the cause of the delay to the planned date for Completion as it’s shown prior to the instruction?

There is quite a bit to unpick here and without knowing all the detail it’s difficult to answer, but in short It sounds as though there has been an unnecessary tangle of delays as well as the contract not being followed…

Delays to the project should be assessed in the order that they occur, So if the Client had not completed certain activities by Contract Award a Notification of Compensation Event(s) should have been submitted immediately after. This would allow you as a Contractor to recover time and cost, and importantly move the Completion Date which i assume would be prior to your delays.

It also appears the Project Manager is attempting to move dates to the ‘left’ which is acceleration, which can only be instructed by Acceleration (36.1). PMI’s (14.3) are to change the Works Information / Key Dates.

You mention 60.1(17), which is for assumptions made in a Compensation Events which the Project Manager states (61.6), this CE is not written for PMI’s. If the CEN’s were raised and accepted mentioned above, the Project Manager should have included their assumptions there.

With all that said, the Client appears to accept they’ve caused a delay by the nature of them trying to “mitigate it”, but it’s not being done in accordance with the Contract in my view, that being an un-amended NEC3 Option A

1 Like