Claim Responses and Determinations - Construction Claims and Responses: Effective Writing and Presentation - page 161

3. The Engineer accepts that delivery of mate-
rials for the activity 'Blockwork to ground
fl oor' was outside the Contractor's control
until 10 February 2010 and that, conse-
quently, the contractor was delayed from 5
to 10 February 2010, a period of 5 calendar
days.
4. The effect on the overall programme has been
demonstrated by impacting the baseline pro-
gramme as follows:
a. Activity: blockwork to ground fl oor.
b. Activity start date deferred by 5 calendar
days.
The Contractor ' s Claim
House No. 40
1. Progress on 1 February 2010: blockwork to ground-fl oor external
walls and partitions was in progress and due to be completed on 3
February 2010.
2. The effect was to suspend progress on the ground-fl oor blockwork
from 1 February to 10 February 2010 and thus prevent completion
until 12 February 2010, a delay of 9 calendar days.
3. The effect on the overall programme has been demonstrated by
impacting the baseline programme as follows:
a. Activity: blockwork to ground fl oor.
b. Activity duration increased by 9 calendar days.
The Engineer's Response
1. As discussed previously herein, the Engineer
considers that the Contractor, having been
given adequate notice of the road crossing,
should have ensured that enough materials
were delivered to the work area, to ensure
that production continued between 1 and 4
February 2010, the planned period of the road
crossing plus one day for contingencies.
Consequently, the ground-fl oor blockwork to
external walls and partitions could have been
completed as planned on 3 February 2010.
2. Additionally, the Engineer's site diary,
extracts from which are included under
Appendix 2 herein, notes that blockwork to
House No. 40 was ongoing on the morning of