Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Datesaccordinglyandacceptstherevisedprogramme.InOptionsEandF,clause36.4,
when the Project Manager accepts a quotation for an acceleration, he changes the
CompletionDate,theKeyDatesandtheforecastofthetotalDeinedCostofthewhole
of the
works
accordingly and accepts the revised programme.
Float
Where there has been a compensation event, the Project Manager does not change
the Completion Date or Key Dates if the event has no effect on Completion or
meeting a Key Date (clause 61.4). This means that if a compensation event affects a
non-critical path activity (i.e. one with float) and does not push it onto the critical
path, the Employer gets the benefit of the float on that activity since there is no
impact on the Completion Date.
In relation to any critical path activities affected by a compensation event, a delay
totheCompletionDateisassessedasthelengthoftimethat,duetothecompensation
event, planned Completion is going to be late as compared to planned Completion in
the programme (clause 63.3). Note that this is not the length of time the Completion
Dateisgoingtobelate.
If there is a gap between planned Completion and the Completion Date this word-
ing means that the Employer does not get the benefit of this float (sometimes referred
to as terminal float).
As an example:
•
A contract where planned Completion is week 20.
•
The Completion Date is week 24.
•
That means 4 weeks of terminal float is built in.
•
A compensation event takes place with a 6-week duration.
•
hatcausesa6weekdelaytoplannedCompletion.
•
In terms of Clause 63.3 the Contactor is entitled to an extension of time for the
length of time the planned Completion is going to be late as compared to planned
Completion in the Programme.
•
he extension of time would be 6 weeks from week 24 to week 30. Not 2 weeks from
week 24 to week 26.
•
This preserves the terminal float for the Contractor in case it is required for future
Contractor delay.
This is illustrated by Figure 5.1.
Float as between the contractor and employer was dealt with in
Henry Boot
Construction (UK) Ltd
v.
Malmaison Hotel (Manchester Ltd
(1999)). In that case, the
Engineer argued that the variations and late information relied on by the contractor
did not cause any delay because these were not on the critical path (due to there
being float). This argument was accepted.
In the more usual situation of a mixture of contractor and employer delays, it can
be a first come first served' approach. If an activity on the programme has float, it is
not a critical path activity. If the employer then instructs a variation to that activity
