Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
What is needed to substantiate a money claim is a chart showing the
progress that could have been achieved had the particular cause of delay or
disruption not arisen, compared with actual achievement. This is best
achieved by the use of a computer-generated network
433
. The architect can
make life very much simpler for all concerned if the master programme to
be provided under clause 5.3.1.2 is required by the preliminaries to be in
network form, fully resourced and indicating the logic links. As much
annotation as possible should be provided to demonstrate precisely the
manner in which progress was affected. The architect should make full
use of every modern aid in dealing with claims and an architect has been
criticised for failing in this respect:
'[The architect] did not carry out a logical analysis in a methodical way of
the impact which the relevant matters had or were likely to have on the
plaintiffs' planned programme.'
434
9.2.4 Correspondence
Copies of any letters, memoranda, etc. relevant to the claim should be
annexed, including of course, copies of the relevant applications, etc.
required by the terms of the contract. Particular paragraphs in the corres-
pondence can be referenced by numbers and referred to in the claim docu-
ment and cross-referenced to cost records, progress schedules and so on.
However, it should be noted that the inclusion of large amounts of copy
correspondence is no substitute for careful linking of cause and effect.
Letters must be read with care and always in the context of other letters
and documents. They may have been written especially to support a future
claim. They may not mean what they appear to mean at first sight.
9.2.5 Records of site meetings
Records of site meetings can provide useful supporting evidence. Usually,
such records are prepared by one party without reference to the other. On
receipt of a copy, the other party should check it carefully and challenge any
alleged inaccuracies, ambiguities or misrepresentations at that time and
ensure that the relevant corrections are recorded both in correspondence
and in the record of the next meeting. If such inaccuracies are not challenged
contemporaneously, with the passage of time it will become increasingly
difficult (though not impossible) to establish that they are not an accurate
record of what actually happened. Such records form the mainstay of many
claims, because matters are recorded there which are not referred to else-
where. Moreover, they usually contain very useful progress reports.
A contractor who is recorded as regularly reporting a project as being on
433
John Barker Construction Ltd
v.
London Portman Hotels Ltd
(1996) 12 Const LJ 277.
434
(1996) 12 Const LJ 277 at 286 per Mr Recorder Toulson.
