Claim Responses and Determinations - Construction Claims and Responses: Effective Writing and Presentation - page 159

under Appendix A), in order to produce an impacted baseline pro-
gramme which is included [in the Contractor's claim]
under Appendix B.
The Engineer's Response
1. The Engineer agrees to the appropriateness of
the Contractor's method of demonstrating the
delay, but not on the amount of delay. The
Engineer has therefore created a new impacted
baseline programme which is included herein
under Appendix 3.
The Contractor ' s Claim
The effect on each dwelling is shown as follows:
House No. 36
1. Progress on 1 February 2010: reinforcement to the raft foundation
in progress and due to be completed on 2 February 2010.
2. The concrete gang can only complete one raft per day and House
No. 38 was programmed to start prior to House No. 36. Thus, con-
creting to House No. 38 took place on 10 February 2010 when the
access was reinstated. The gang followed on with House No. 36 on
11 February 2010. Thus, the effect was to delay concreting of the
raft foundation from the planned date of 3 February to 11 February
2010, a delay of 8 calendar days.
3. The effect on the overall programme has been demonstrated by
impacting the baseline programme as follows:
a. Activity: concrete to raft foundation.
b. Activity start date deferred by 8 calendar days.
The Engineer's Response
1. The Engineer considers that reinforcement
could have continued and been completed as
planned on 2 February 2010.
2. The Engineer considers that the Contractor
could have utilised a concrete pump (for
which the Engineer would have considered
additional payment) in order to concrete the
raft on 3 February 2010 as planned.
3. There is a 3-day curing period before block-
work may be commenced, so the Engineer accepts
that, allowing for the weekend of 6 and 7
February 2010, materials for this activity