Contractor EOT - Anaylasis Event-Wise

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW KHANKI BARRAGE AND AUXILIARY WORKS
Contract No NKB/ICB-01
DRAFT REPORT OF ENGINEER’S INTERIM DETERMINATION
Title : Contractor’s Request for Extension of Time(EOT) for Civil,

Mechanical and Electrical Works (EOT#2)
Contractor : M/S Descon Engineering Limited
Date of Claim : 2nd January 2015
Cut-off Date : 30thSeptember 2014
Time Claimed : 477 days (26-01-2017 to 16-05-2018)
1. INTRODUCTION
The Contractor vide letter at DEL/NKB/ICB-01/SO/EN/1750 dated 2 nd January 2015

requested the Engineer for extension of time (EOT) for completion of Main Works (Civil,
Mechanical and Electrical Works) of the Contract NKB/ICB-01 up to 16 th May 2018 under
Sub-Clauses1.9, 8.4& 20.1 of General Conditions of the Contract based on eighteen (15)
delaying events.
The delay events claimed by the Contractor are as follows:
01.2.2.1-A: Delay in issuance of drawings for construction (IFC Drawings) concerning

“Barrage Main Weir” as per agreed Schedule.
02.2.2.2-B: Delay in issuance of drawings for construction (IFC Drawings) concerning
“Barrage Undersluices” as per agreed Schedule
03.2.2.3-C: Delay in issuance of drawings for construction (IFC Drawings) concerning
“Barrage Divide Wall & Fish Ladder” as per agreed Schedule.
04.2.2.4-D: Delay in issuance of drawings for construction (IFC Drawings) concerning
“Barrage Abutment” as per agreed Schedule
05.2.2.5-E: Delay in issuance of drawings for construction (IFC Drawings) concerning “LCC
Head Regulator and Abutment” as per agreed Schedule.
06. 2.2.6-F: Delay in issuance of drawings for construction (IFC Drawings) concerning
“Barrage Pre-Stressed Bridge” as per agreed Schedule.
07. 2.2.7-G: Delay in issuance of issued for construction drawings of “ChenawanRoad”
08. 2.2.8-H: Delay caused by “Adverse Climatic Conditions at Site”
09. 2.2.9-I: In-effective site possession and unreasonable delay in approval of design for
“Construction of Recreational Park”
10. 2.2.10-J:In-effective site possession and unreasonable delay in approval of Design/
drawings of “Colony School”
11. 2.2.11-K:Unnecessary delay in approval of design/drawings of “Basic Health Unit with
allied Buildings”
12. 2.2.12-L:Unnecessary delay in approval of design/drawings of “Flood Control Office”
13. 2.2.13-M:Delay caused by restoration and remedial works after the “Supper Flood”
14. 2.2.14-N: Additional Time required for extra works-“Concrete Bored Piles”
15. 2.2.15-O: Additional Time required for extra works-“Engineered Fill”
2. General Description
The Contract comprises execution and completion of the Works and design, fabricating,
repairing where required, testing and erection of gates gearing and ancillaries and the
remedying of any defects therein and, except in so far as the Contract otherwise provides,
the provision of all labour, materials, equipment, plant, Temporary Works and everything
whether of a temporary or permanent nature required in and for such execution, completion
and remedying so far as the necessity for providing the same is specified in or can
reasonably be inferred from the Contract.
The Contract Agreement for Construction of New Khanki Barrage (Contract No. NKB/ICB-01
including Preliminary Works) has been executed and signed by the parties on 29th May
2013.
Notice to commence the Works has been issued by the Engineer to the Contractor
on 05-07-2013 acknowledged by the Contractor on 08 July 2013. Under the Contract
NKB/ICB-01, the Works to be executed are (1) Civil, Mechanical & Electrical works (Main
Barrage Works) and (2) Preliminary Works:
The Contract stipulates Completion Time of 1188 days for the Section of Civil, Mechanical &
Electrical Works and 270 days for the Section of Preliminary Works both calculated from the
Commencement Date. The date of commencement of the Contract is 08 thJuly 2013. The
date of Completion of Preliminary Work is, therefore 03-04-2014 and that of the Civil,
Mechanical & Electrical Works is 07-10-2016. An interim EOT-1 for Main Barrage Works
requested by the Contractor was processed and determined by the Engineer for 110 days
which extends the Time for Completion of whole of the Works up to 25thJanuary 2017.
3. Applicable Contract Provisions
Sub-Clause 2.1 Right of Access to the Site
The Employer shall give the Contractor right of access to, and possession of, all parts of the
Site within the time (or times) stated in the Contract Data. If no such time is stated in the
Contract Data, the Employer shall give the Contractor right of access to, and possession of,
the Site within such times as required to enable the Contractor to proceed without disruption
in accordance with the program submitted under Sub-Clause 8.3 (Program). Sub-Clause 2.1
of particular Conditions of Contract Part-A – Contract Data stipulates Time for access to the
Site as “By Commencement Date”.
If the Contractor suffers delay and/or incurs Cost as a result of a failure by the Employer to
give any such right or possession within such time, the Contractor shall give notice to the
Engineer and shall be entitled subject to Sub-Clause 20.1 (Contractor’s Claims) to:
(a) An extension of time for any such delay, if completion is or will be delayed, under
Sub-
Clause 8.4 (Extension of Time for Completion), and
(b) Payment of any such Cost plus profit, which shall be included in the Contract Price.
After receiving this notice, the Engineer shall proceed in accordance with Sub-Clause 3.5
(Determinations) to agree or determine these matters.
Sub-Clause 1.9 Delayed Drawings or Instruction

The Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer whenever the Works are likely to be delayed
or disrupted if any necessary drawing or instruction is not issued to the Contractor within a
particular time, which shall be reasonable. The notice shall include details of the necessary
drawing or instruction, details of why and by when it should be issued, and the nature and
amount of the delay or disruption likely to be suffered if it is late.
If the Contractor suffers delay and/or incurs Cost as a result of a failure of the Engineer to
issue the notified drawing or instruction within a time which is reasonable and is specified in
the notice with supporting details, the Contractor shall give a further notice to the Engineer
and shall be entitled subject to Sub-Clause 20.1 (Contractor’s Claims) to:
a) An extension of time for any such delay, if completion is or will be delayed, under
Sub-Clause 8.4 (Extension of Time for Completion), and
b) Payment of any such Cost plus profit, which shall be included in the Contract Price.
After receiving this further notice, the Engineer shall proceed in accordance with Sub-Clause
3.5 (Determinations) to agree or determine these matters.
5.3: Sub-Clause 3.3 - Instructions of the Engineer
The Engineer may issue to the Contractor (at any time) instructions and additional or
modified Drawings which may be necessary for the execution of the Works and the
remedying of any defects, all in accordance with the Contract. The Contractor shall only take
instructions from the Engineer, or from an assistant to whom the appropriate authority has
been delegated under this Clause. If an instruction constitutes a Variation, Clause 13
(Variations and Adjustments) shall apply.
5.4 Sub-Clause 3.5 Determinations

Whenever these Conditions provide that the Engineer shall proceed in accordance with this
Sub-Clause 3.5 to agree or determine any matter, the Engineer shall consult with each Party
in an endeavor to reach agreement. If agreement is not achieved, the Engineer shall make a
fair determination in accordance with the Contract, taking due regard of all relevant
circumstances.
The Engineer shall give notice to both Parties of each agreement or determination, with
supporting particulars, within 28 days from the receipt of the corresponding claim or request
except when otherwise specified. Each Party shall give effect to each agreement or
determination unless and until revised under Clause 20 (Claims, Disputes and Arbitration).
5.5 Sub-Clause SP-6.20 Drawings Issued for Construction
After award of the Contract, the Tender Drawings will be replaced by Drawings Issued for
Construction including supplementary specifications if necessary. Such Drawings and
specifications shall be deemed to be included in the expression Supplementary Drawings
and Instructions under Sub-Clause 3.3 of the Conditions of Contract. The Drawings Issued
for Construction will include Tender Drawings reissued, Tender Drawings modified, and
additional drawings as required to develop the work in greater detail, and to make
modifications as necessary to further detail the construction required. The Drawings Issued
for Construction that show changes from the Tender Drawings and Specifications will be
reviewed by the Engineer for his determination of adjustments
(if any) of the Contract Price in accordance with the provisions of Clause 13, Variations, of
the Conditions of Contract. The Drawings Issued for Construction will be drawings from
which shop drawings, reinforcing detailing, reinforcing bar schedule, erection, concrete
placing, and construction detail drawings shall be prepared by the Contractor.
The work shall be executed in conformity with the Drawings Issued for Construction. The
Engineer and Contractor shall jointly prepare a schedule for issuance to the Contractor of
Drawings Issued for Construction of the various parts of the Works based on a list of
drawings prepared by the Engineer.
Sub-Clause 8.4 Extension of Time for Completion
The Contractor shall be entitled subject to Sub-Clause 20.1 (Contractor’s Claims) to an

extension of the Time for Completion if and to the extent that completion for the purposes of
Sub-Clause 10.1 (Taking-Over of the Works and Sections) is or will be delayed by any of the
following causes:
a) a Variation (unless an adjustment to the Time for Completion has been agreed under
Sub-Clause 13.3 (Variation Procedure) or other substantial change in the quantity of an item
of work included in the Contract),
b) a cause of delay giving an entitlement to extension of time under a Sub-Clause of
these Conditions,
c) exceptionally adverse climatic conditions,
d) Unforeseeable shortages in the availability of personnel or Goods caused by
epidemic or governmental actions, or
e) Any delay, impediment or prevention caused by or attributable to the Employer, the
Employer’s Personnel, or the Employer’s other Contractors.
If the Contractor considers himself to be entitled to an extension of the Time for Completion,
the Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer in accordance with Sub-Clause 20.1
(Contractor’s Claims). When determining each extension of time under Sub-Clause 20.1, the
Engineer shall review previous determinations and may increase, but shall not decrease, the
total extension of time.
Sub-Clause 20.1 Contractor’s Claims
If the Contractor considers himself to be entitled to any extension of the Time for Completion
and/or any additional payment, under any Clause of these Conditions or otherwise in
connection with the Contract, the Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer, describing the
event or circumstance giving rise to the Claim. The notice shall be given as soon as
practicable, and not later than 28 days after the Contractor became aware, or should have
become aware, of the event or circumstance.
If the Contractor fails to give notice of a claim within such period of 28 days, the Time for
Completion shall not be extended, the Contractor shall not be entitled to additional payment,
and the Employer shall be discharged from all liability in connection with the claim.
Otherwise, the following provisions of this Sub-Clause shall apply.
The Contractor shall also submit any other notices which are required by the Contract, and
supporting particulars for the claim, all as relevant to such event or circumstance.
The Contractor shall keep such contemporary records as may be necessary to substantiate
any claim, either on the Site or at another location acceptable to the Engineer. Without
admitting the Employer’s liability, the Engineer may, after receiving any notice under this
Sub-Clause, monitor the record-keeping and/or instruct the Contractor to keep further
contemporary records. The Contractor shall permit the Engineer to inspect all these records,
and shall (if instructed) submit copies to the Engineer.
Within 42 days after the Contractor became aware (or should have become aware) of the
event or circumstance giving rise to the claim or within such other period as may be
proposed by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer, the Contractor shall send to the
Engineer a fully detailed claim which includes full supporting particulars of the basis of the
claim and of the extension of time and /or additional payment claimed. If the event or
circumstance giving rise to the claim has a continuing effect:
a) this fully detailed claim shall be considered as interim;
b) the Contractor shall send further interim claims at monthly intervals, giving the
accumulated delay and/or amount claimed, and such further particulars as the Engineer may
reasonably require; and
c) the Contractor shall send a final claim within 28 days after the end of the effects
resulting from the event or circumstance, or within such other period as may be proposed by
the Contractor and approved by the Engineer.
Within 42 days after receiving a claim or any further particulars supporting a previous claim,
or within such other period as may be proposed by the Engineer and approved by the
Contractor, the Engineer shall respond with approval, or with disapproval and detailed
comments. He may also request any necessary further particulars, but shall nevertheless
give his response on the principles of the claim within the above defined time period.
Within the above defined period of 42 days, the Engineer shall proceed in accordance with
Sub-Clause 3.5 (Determinations) to agree or determine (i) the extension (if any) of the Time
for Completion (before or after its expiry) in accordance with Sub-Clause 8.4 (Extension of
Time for Completion) and/or (ii) the additional payment (if any) to which the Contractor is
entitled under the Contract.
4. Event-Wise Analysis / Assessment Of Time Lost As Claimed

By The Contractor
6.1Event No. 2.2.1- A:

Delay in issuance of drawings for construction concerning “Barrage Main Weir” as
per agreed Schedule.
The Contractor’sContention:-The Contractor contends “The progress of works at “Barrage
Main Weir” with reference to the approved Baseline Programme was adversely affected due
to delay in issuance of IFC drawings by the Engineer. The Contractor was prepared to
execute the works as per Baseline Programme and had mobilized all the required resources
at project site but was unable to achieve the planned targets due to factors which are
attributable to the Engineer/Employer. Delay in issuance of IFC drawings for joint
arrangement and detail of Panel-C Nose by the Engineer resulted in both loss of time and
idling of the resources mobilized by the Contractor”
The Contractor further stated that date of issuance of IFC drawings of Barrage Main Weir as
per agreed Schedule was 12th November 2013 whereas the actual date of receipt of IFC
drawings for the same was 14 th May 2014. The Contractor has claimed a delay of 75 days
on account of this event.
The Engineer’s Analysis:-
This event is the continuation of event No. 2.2.2-B of the Contractor’s EOT-1 request for
Main Barrage Works .The Engineer had analyzed this event in detail and denied vide letter #
5065044/SMEC /R0/05.121/494-2014 dated 15th September 2014. However the Contractor’s
stance “Delay in issuance of details of Panel-C Nose” is a new argument by the Contractor
in support of his claim. The Engineer has further reviewed this event and commented as
under.
As per Technical Specifications the Contractor was to prepare concrete mix design with
aggregates of 3” in size. This mix design was submitted by the Contractor on23rd June 2014
and approved provisionally by the Engineer on 24 th June 2014. Further topographic survey
conducted by the Contractor was incorrect which resulted in shifting of the barrage by 60 ft
to right side. The Engineer had to conduct topographic survey by a subcontractor which was
completed by the end of February 2014.In the absence of topographic survey and concrete
mix design issuance of IFC drawings was useless.
The Contractor’s statement that IFC drawings of Main Weir were issued on 14 th May 2014 is
not correct because after issuance of drawings and necessary preparation the Contractor
had started pouring of Panel-E on 22nd January 2014. While panel-C was on hold, there
were ample number of Panels A & E which were in full run for concreting utilizing all the
resources deployed by the contractor. The Contractor therefore did not suffer any loss of
time. In light of the foregoing, the Contractor failed to substantiate the hindrance in work due
to hold on Panel-C.
Further the Contractor did not notify the Engineer for delay or disruption in Work under Sub-
Clause 1.9 of GCC due to delay in issuance of drawing “details of Panel-C Nose”. Therefore
under the Contract provision the Contractor’s stance is therefore not valid and request for
EOT on this basis is not accepted.
6.2 Event No. 2.2.2-B:
Delay in issuance of drawings for Construction concerning (IFC Drawings) “Barrage

Undersluices” as per agreed Schedule.
Contractor’s Contention:
The Contractor contends that further to his request for EOT #1, he is continuously facing
delays because of the events which are not attributable to him and he has been apprising,
reminding and notifying the Engineer/Employer of all such delaying events under Sub-
Clause 1.9,8.4 and 20.1 of GCC. The Contractor further contends that he served a notice to
the Engineer for delay in issuance of drawings IFC vide # 570 dated March01,2014.The
Engineer was unable to provide the Drawings IFC as per the mutually agreed schedule. He
takes the plea that due to delayed drawing IFC, his activities on the following structures were
either on-hold or critically affected:
 Barrage Main Weir

 Barrage Under-Sluices
 Barrage Silt Excluder
 Barrage Divide Wall and Fish Ladder
 Barrage Abutment
 Barrage Guide Bank
 LCC Head Regulator Barrage Pre-stressed Bridge
 Sheet Piles
The Contractor also reiterated that the flood season was approaching and due to non-
availability of drawings IFC, the Contractor shall have no alternate no alternate but to shift
his construction schedule to next year as it was not possible for him to make up for this delay
before the flood season ( year 2014). Furthermore, the Contractor claims that his progress
on Panel-C of Barrage was disrupted and all works were stopped on April 01, 2014 when
Engineer along with Resident Engineer verbally instructed at Site to suspend the Works till
further order. The Contractor states that he had to suspend all activities at Elevation703 ft. in
panel-C as well as all such locations where level 703 ft. had been achieved.
In this regard, the Contractor furnished a notice to the Engineer to confirm his verbal
instruction vides letter of April 02,2014, asking the Engineer to confirm suspension of work
in writing and in continuation of this, the Contractor further served another notice via letter
#995 dated June03,2014 conveying a list of drawings which were still awaited on that date.
The Contractor further contends that the Engineer rejected his notice vide letter # 1049 of
June 06, 2014 on the plea that the said notice was not fulfilled the requirements of that Sub-
Clause 1.9 [Delayed Drawings or Instructions].Furthermore ,the Engineer also rejected the
Contractor’s notice pursuant to Sub-Clause8.4 by putting his attention on Engineer’s letter
dated March24, 2014 and dated April 02,2014 whereby the Engineer had advised the
Contractor to submit a revised Schedule as the Baseline Schedule had become inconsistent
with the actual progress of Works achieved at that time.
The Contractor urges that due to delay in issuance of IFC drawings for joint arrangement
and detail of Panel-C Nose by the Engineer, he was unable to achieve the planned targets
and this delay resulted in both loss of time and idling of the resources mobilized by the
Contractor at Site. The Contractor has claimed a delay of 75 days (from 12th November 2013
to14th May 2014) on account of this event.
Applicable Clauses:

Sub-Clause 3.3 Instructions of the Engineer
Sub-Clause 3.5 Determinations
Sub-Clause SP-6.20 Drawings Issued for Construction
The Engineer’s Analysis:
This event was also raised by the Contractor in his first request for EOT #1 which was
denied with detailed comments by the Engineer vide letter # 5065044/SMEC
/R0/05.121/494-2014 dated 15th September 2014. However, the Contractor’s contention
regarding delay in issuance of details of Panel-C Nose is a new one in the instant request for
EOT.
After a careful review of the Contractor’s submission, it has been noted that he has
submitted notice for the delayed drawings of almost all the components of the Barrage at a
time (in one go), by describing a generic statement with reference to Sub-Clause 1.9, 8.4
and 20.1 of COC. He has also amalgamated other events, (like small variations, suspension
of work , etc.) and has concluded a combined result of alleged delay time.
Whereas, the relevant provisions of the Contract do not permit the Contractor to do so. In the
present case, the relevant Sub-Clause 1.9 [Delayed Drawings or Instruction] requires from
the Contractor to give a reasonable notice to the Engineer if there are likely to be delays or
disruption caused by a late supply of drawings or instructions. Such notice should give the
details of the requested drawing(s) or instructions, when it is required and its likely
consequences, if the drawing or instructions are delayed. Should the Works be delayed
physically due to the requirement of a specific drawing or instruction, then the Contractor,
having given another notice in accordance with Sub-Clause 20.1, shall be entitled to an
extension of time and to payment of Cost, if any.
Pursuant to Sub-Clause20.1, it was further required by the Contractor to submit a fully
detailed claim, within 42 days after the Contractor became aware (or should have become
aware) of the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim, or within such other period as
may be proposed by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer; which includes full
supporting particulars of the basis of the claim and of the extension of time and/or additional
payment claimed. In case of a continuing effect this fully detailed claim shall be considered
as interim; and the Contractor shall send further interim claims at monthly intervals, giving
the accumulated delay and/or amount claimed, and such further particulars as the Engineer
may reasonably require; and the Contractor shall send a final claim within 28 days after the
end of the effects resulting from the event or circumstance.
Physically, the record shows that the Contractor has not submitted his notice for delayed
Drawings IFC as per detailed requirements of Sub-Clause1.9 of COC and submitted his
claim for EOT after about one year later against the specified timeframe of 42 days without
getting any approval by the Engineer. Thus, the Contractor has neither submitted his notice
for delayed Drawings IFC as per requirements of Sub-Clause1.9 nor he has submitted the
detailed claim for EOT and/or additional cost within the timeframe of 42 days as required
under Sub-Clause 20.1. Furthermore, it has been noted that the Contractor has also failed to
substantiate any delay or disruption of Works due to the requisite drawings. It appears that
the Contractor himself has failed to manage his resources and other Plant and Equipment in
accordance with his Baseline Programme.
Thus the Engineer concludes on the basis of available data that the Contractor has not
suffered any loss of time and his claim on this account is not justified. The Engineer,
therefore, determines that the Contractor has not suffered any delay on account of this event
under the relevant provisions of the Contract.
6.3Event No.2.2.3-C:
Delay in issuance of drawings for Construction concerning “Barrage Divide Wall &
Fish Ladder” as per agreed Schedule.
The Contractor’s contention:
The Contractor contends that further to his request for EOT #1, he is continuously facing
delays because of the events which are not attributable to him and he has been apprising,
reminding and notifying the Engineer/Employer of all such delaying events under Sub-
Clause 1.9,8.4 and 20.1 of GCC. The Contractor further contends that he served a notice to
the Engineer for delay in issuance of drawings IFC vide # 570 dated March01,2014.The
Engineer was unable to provide the Drawings IFC as per the mutually agreed schedule. He
takes the plea that due to delayed drawing IFC, his activities on the following structures were
either on-hold or critically affected:
 Sheet Piles
The Contractor states that further to their request for EOT#1due to the delaying events
attributable to the Engineer/ Employer upto February28, 2014;he is continuously facing
delays which are not attributable to him. He contends that he has been apprising, reminding
and notifying the Engineer/Employer of all such delaying events under Sub-Clause 1.9,8.4
and 20.1 of GCC. The Contractor further contends that he served a notice to the Engineer
for delay in issuance of drawings IFC vide # 570 dated March01,2014 but the Engineer could
not provide the Drawings as per the mutually agreed schedule. The Contractor takes the
plea that due to delayed drawing IFC, his activities on the following structures were either
on-hold or critically affected:

 Sheet Piles
The Contractor further asserts that in this regard, he furnished a notice to the Engineer to
confirm his verbal instruction vides letter of April 02, 2014, asking the Engineer to confirm
suspension of work in writing and in continuation of this, the Contractor further served
another notice via letter #995 dated June03, 2014 conveying a list of drawings which were
still awaited on that date.
The Contractor further contends that the Engineer rejected his notice vide letter # 1049 of
June 06, 2014 on the plea that the said notice was not fulfilled the requirements of that Sub-
Clause 1.9 [Delayed Drawings or Instructions].Furthermore ,the Engineer also rejected the
Contractor’s notice pursuant to Sub-Clause8.4 by putting his attention on Engineer’s letter
dated March24, 2014 and dated April 02,2014 whereby the Engineer had advised the
Contractor to submit a revised Schedule as the Baseline Schedule had become inconsistent
with the actual progress of Works achieved at that time.
The Contractor urges that due to delay in issuance of IFC drawings by the Engineer for
Concrete outline, reinforcement plans and sectional details bearing # NKB-BS-DW-COL-
F9,NKB-BS-DW-RE-F8 &NKB-BS-DW-SE-F2, he was unable to achieve the planned targets
and this delay resulted in both loss of time and idling of the resources mobilized by the
Contractor at Site. The Contractor has claimed a delay of 77 days (from 28th February to14th
May 2014) on account of this event.
The Engineer’s Analysis

This event has been added by the Contractor in continuation of event No. 2.2.5-E of his
request for EOT#1 for Main Barrage Works whereby the Engineer determined a delay of 95
days from 26th November 2013 to 28th February 2014 (cut-off date of EoT-1 for Main Barrage
Works) due to non-issuance of IFC drawings of L/S Divide Wall and Fish Ladder on interim
basis at that time.
After a careful examination of the record in context with the relevant provisions of the
Contract, it has been noted that the Contractor has submitted notice for the delayed
drawings of almost all the components of the Barrage at a time (in one go), by describing a
generic statement with reference to Sub-Clause 1.9, 8.4 and 20.1 of COC. The record
further reveals that the Contractor himself could not submit the detailed design for E&M
works as per his programme of works due to change of his nominated sub-Contractor (for
mechanical works); and also could not follow his schedule for preliminary works; like
Concrete batching Plant, approval of borrow areas, approval of materials, approval of Site
Workshop (for mechanical works) and other arrangements at Site and hence his programme of
Works had become inconsistent with actual progress of Works which need to be revised
pursuant to Sub-Clause 8.3 and Sub-Clause 11.1 of Special provisions. Thus, the baseline
programme had become void and was no more workable. In spite of Engineer’s advice, the
Contractor did not submit the revised programme to make it consistent with the actual
progress of Works at Site.
It has also been noticed that the Contractor has also amalgamated other events,(like small
variations, suspension of work ,etc.) and has concluded a combined result of alleged delay
time.
Moreover, the reference # of the drawings IFC pertaining to Concrete Outline, Reinforcement
plan and Section specified by the Contractor do not match with the IFC drawings numbers
mentioned in the list issued by the Engineer vide his letter No. 5065044/SMEC/CON/0087-
2013 dated 04thNovember,2013. It requires clarification by the Contractor.
Pursuant to Sub-Clause20.1, it was required by the Contractor to submit further interim
claims on monthly intervals, giving the accumulated delay and/or amount claimed, and such
further particulars as the Engineer may reasonably require; and he was required to submit
his final claim within 28 days after the end of the effects resulting from this event or
circumstance.
Physically, the Contractor has not followed the procedure as stipulated in the said Sub-
Clause and submitted his claim for EOT after about one year later, without getting any
approval by the Engineer. Furthermore, he has also failed to substantiate any delay or
disruption of Works due to the drawings specified in his submission.
The Engineer concludes on the basis of available data that the Contractor’s claim is not
justified without substantiation and he has not suffered any loss of time and cost due to
alleged delay time. The Engineer, therefore, determines that the Contractor has not suffered
any delay on account of this event under the relevant provisions of the Contract.
6.4Event No.2.2.4-D:
Delay in issuance of IFC Drawings for Construction (Drawing IFC) concerning

“Barrage Abutment” as per agreed Schedule.
The Contractor’s Contention:
The Contractor, while describing this event, has copied/repeated the same contents as of the
previous event (Event No.2.2.3-C) except changing the table and Timeline given at the end
of this event. The Contractor claims 214 days in total (from 28-Feb 30-Sep, 2014) on
account of delayed issuance of drawings of Concrete outline Plan &Elevation, concrete
outline Section and reinforcement Plan & Elevation, and thereafter its clarification from the
Engineer.
Applicable Contract Clauses:


This event has been added by the Contractor in continuation of event No. 2.2.6-F of his
days from 12th November 2013 to 28th February 2014 (Cut-off date of EoT-1 for Main Barrage
Works) due to non-issuance of IFC drawings at that time on interim basis.
Initial scrutiny of this event reveals that the Contractor has described nothing new regarding
this event and has not provided the detail to substantiate his stance. However, it appears
from the table included at the end of this event that he received the drawings of Concrete
Outline Plan & Elevation, Concrete Outline Section and Reinforcement Plan &
Elevation on 19th August, 2014.
The record further reveals that the Contractor himself could not submit the detailed design
for E&M works as per his programme of works due to change of his nominated sub-
Contractor (for mechanical works); and also could not follow his schedule for preliminary
works; like Concrete batching Plant, approval of borrow areas, approval of materials,
approval of Site Workshop (for mechanical works) and other arrangements at Site and hence he
himself was not prepared to take up the Works in accordance with Baseline Programme.
Thus, his programme of Works had become inconsistent with the actual progress of Works
at Site, which need to be revised pursuant to Sub-Clause 8.3 of COC and Sub-Clause 11.1
of Special provisions. The Engineer considers that the Contractor’s baseline programme had
become physically null and void and was no more workable. In spite of Engineer’s advice,
the Contractor did not submit the revised programme to make it consistent with the actual
progress of Works at Site.
It has been noted from the available record/data that the Contractor submitted notice for the
delayed drawings of almost all the components of the Barrage at a time (in one go), by
describing a generic statement with reference to Sub-Clause 1.9, 8.4 and 20.1 of COC(As
has been seen in almost all the events). He has also amalgamate other events,(like small
time.
Pursuant to Sub-Clause20.1, the Contractor was required to submit further interim claims on
monthly intervals (being the continuing effect), giving the accumulated delay and/or amount
claimed, and such further particulars as the Engineer may reasonably require; and he was
also required to submit his final claim within 28 days after the end of the effects resulting
from this event or circumstance i.e. within 28 days subsequent to August19, 2014.
Practically, the Contractor has not followed the procedure as stipulated in the said Sub-
Clause and submitted his claim for EOT after a considerable delay about six months without
getting any approval by the Engineer. The Engineer considers that the Contractor has not
followed the procedure stipulated under Sub-Clause 20.1. Moreover, he has also failed to
substantiate any delay or disruption of Works due to the delayed drawings specified in this
event.
The Engineer concludes on the basis of available data that the Contractor’s claim is not
justified without any substantiation at his end and practically he has not suffered any loss of
time and cost due to alleged delay time. The Engineer, therefore, determines that the
Contractor has not suffered any delay on account of this event under the relevant provisions
of the Contract.
6.5Event No.2.2.5-E:
Delay in issuance of drawings for Construction concerning “LCC Head Regulator and
Abutment” as per agreed Schedule.
The Contractor, while describing the Brief Summary for this event, has almost reproduced
the same contents as he has given in Event No.2.2.3-C except changing the table and
Timeline given at the end of this event. The Contractor claims 214 days in total (from 28-Feb,
2014 to 30-Sep, 2014) on account of delayed issuance of the following drawings:
I. LCC Head Regulator Plan, H/R Joint Arrangement Plan; (63 days)
II. LCC H/R Pile Arrangement, LCC H/R Plan & Section; and (166 days)
III. H/R Abutment Concrete Outline & H/R Abutment Reinforcement (Max. Delay of 214 days).


This event has been added by the Contractor in continuation of event No. 2.2.8-H of his
days from 26th November 2013 to 28th February 2014 (Cut-off date of EoT-1 for Main Barrage
Works) due to non-issuance of IFC drawings at that time, on interim basis.
A careful review of this event reveals that the Contractor has reproduced the whole event
No.2.2.3-C and has described nothing new in brief summary and discussion regarding this
event. It appears that the Contractor has not prepared this alleged delaying event properly.
However, it can be inferred from the table, included at the end of this event that he did not
receive the drawings of H/R Abutment Concrete Outline & H/R Abutment Reinforcement
(having Max. Delay of 214 days) up to 30th September 2014(the cut-off date of EOT-2).It is notable
that the Contractor has not specified any number for these drawings in his submission which
requires clarification at his end. Whereas, other drawings mentioned at sr.# i) & ii) under
Contactor’s contention above, were received by him on May02,2014August13,2014
respectively. From the available record, it has been noticed that the Contractor submitted
notice for the delayed drawings of almost all the components of the Barrage at a time (in one
go), by describing a generic statement with reference to Sub-Clause 1.9, 8.4 and 20.1 of
COC(As observed in almost all the events). He has also amalgamate other events,(like small
time. Two new letters, which the Contractor has added in this event ( DEL/NKB/ICB-
01/SO/EN/1124 dated June29, 2014 & 5065044/SMEC/0.10.20/1164-2014 dated July11, 2014 ) pertains with
the routine correspondence and do not indicate any disruption or delay regarding issuance
of shop drawing. The record indicates that Contractor has also failed to substantiate stance
regarding disruption of Works due to the delayed drawings specified in this event.
The Engineer considers on the basis of available data that the Contractor’s claim is not
justified without substantiation and physically, he has not suffered any loss of time and cost
due to alleged delay. The Engineer, therefore, determines that the Contractor is not entitles
for any delay time on account of this event under the relevant provisions of the Contract.
6.6: Event No.2.2.6-F:
Delay in issuance of drawings for Construction concerning “Barrage Pre-stressed

Bridge” as per agreed Schedule.
The Contractor contends in his brief summary of the event that further to his EOT request
#1, he is continuously facing delays because of the events which are not attributable to him
and he has been apprising, reminding and notifying the Engineer/Employer of all such
delaying events under Sub-Clause 1.9, 8.4 and 20.1 of GCC. The Contractor further
contends that he served a notice to the Engineer for delay in issuance of drawings IFC vide
# 570 dated March01,2014 as the Engineer was unable to provide the Drawings IFC as per
the mutually agreed schedule. He takes the plea that due to delayed drawing IFC, his
activities on the following structures were either on-hold or critically affected:
 Sheet Piles
availability of drawings IFC, he will have no alternative but to shift his construction schedule
to next year as it was not possible for him to make up for this delay before the flood season (
year 2014). Furthermore, the Contractor asserts that he reminded the Engineer for the
approval of shop drawings of AR Bridge via letter #659 dated March 26, 2014 and
emphasized that for the preparation and submission of shop drawings, it was essential for
the Engineer to clarify all ambiguities and queries raised by the Contractor.
The Contractor contends that in spite of above said notification; there was no improvement
in issuance of drawings by the Engineer. In continuation, the Contractor furnished with
another notice to the Engineer for delay in issuance of drawings via letter# 995 dated June
03, 2014. The following drawings, as per Contractor’s statement, were awaited as on June
03, 2014, which were supposed to be issued on November12, 2013.
The Contractor has mentioned a list of various drawings of Barrage, LCC Head Regulator,
Pre-stressed Girder of AR Bridge, D/S Divide Wall & Fish Ladder, and Guage Wells. The
Contractor further contends that the Engineer rejected his notice vide letter # 1049 of June
06, 2014 on the plea that the said notice was not fulfilled the requirements of that Sub-
Clause 1.9 [Delayed Drawings or Instructions].
The Contractor further states that the Engineer also rejected the Contractor’s notice
pursuant to Sub-Clause8.4 by putting his attention on Engineer’s letter dated March 24,
2014 and dated April 02,2014 whereby the Engineer had advised the Contractor to submit a
revised Schedule as the Baseline Schedule had become inconsistent with the actual
progress of Works achieved at that time.
The Contractor served a notice for delay in issuance of Pre-stressed Girders vide letter
#1050 dated June14,2014.The Contractor claims that the activity could not be materialized
due to delay in issuance of drawings as the Engineer had not finalized the Tendon Profile of
Pre-stressed as on June12,2014. In continuation, the Contractor served a further notice (2 nd
Notice) for delay in issuance of drawings pertaining to casting of pre-stressed girders via
letter #1091dated June24, 2014. The Contractor claims that due to Engineer’s failure to
issue the drawings IFC as per the agreed schedule, his Works delayed and disrupted at Site.
The Contractor also served another notice on July15, 2014 to the Engineer for delay
issuance of drawings IFC via letter #1179.
The Contractor urges that the progress of works at Barrage Pre-stressed Bridge with
reference to approved Base-line Programme was adversely affected due to delay in
issuance of IFC drawings by the Engineer; whereas he was prepared to execute the works
as per Baseline Programme and had mobilized all the required sources at Project Site. The
Contractor contends that due to delay in issuance of drawings particularly bridge general
arrangement plan & section(which was received by the Contractor on July 08,214), he was unable to achieve
the planned targets and this delay has resulted into both loss of time, and idling of the
resources mobilized by the Contractor at Site. The Contractor is claiming a delay of 130
days (from 28th February to 8th July, 2014) on account of this event.
This event has been added by the Contractor in continuation of event No. 2.2.9-I of his
request for EOT#1 for Main Barrage Works whereby the Engineer has already determined a
delay time of 76 days on interim basis from 26th November 2013 to 24th February 2014 due
to non-issuance of IFC drawings of Pre-stressed Bridge, the drawings of which were issued
by the Engineer vide letter # 5065044/SMEC/ CON/ 0333-2014 dated on 24 th February 2014.
Since the event had finished before 28thFebruary 2014 (i.e., cut-off date of EoT-1 for Main
Barrage Works), hence cannot be considered further in Contractor’s Request for EOT-2 and is
not justified.
Although, the Contractor’s letter # 1091 dated June24, 2014 may be considered as a notice
for claiming EOT and /or additional cost but the Contractor has not followed the prescribed
procedure as stipulated in Sub-Clause20.1.Pursuant to this Sub-Clause, it was required by
the Contractor to submit a fully detailed claim regarding this event, within 42 days after
the Contractor became aware (or should have become aware) of the event or
circumstance giving rise to the claim, or within such other period as may be
proposed by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer; which includes full
supporting particulars of the basis of the claim and of the extension of time and/or
additional payment claimed.
Physically, the Contractor submitted his claim for EOT later after about six months against
the specified timeframe of 42 days without getting any approval by the Engineer.
Furthermore, he has also failed to substantiate any delay or disruption of Works due to the
drawings specified in his submission. The record reveals that the Contractor himself could
not submit the detailed design for E&M works as per his programme of works due to change
of his nominated sub-Contractor (for mechanical works); and also could not follow his
schedule for preliminary works; like Concrete batching Plant, approval of borrow areas,
approval of Site Workshop (for mechanical works) and other arrangements at Site. Although
some drawings pertaining to civil works of panel –C were delayed (on the part of the
Engineer) as compared with the baseline schedule of the Contractor, due to geotechnical
investigations but physically, the Contractor’s works have not suffered any delay due to
overwhelming concurrent delays on the part of the Contractor.
The Engineer considers on the basis of available data that the Contractor’s claim is not
alleged delay time. The Engineer thus determines that the Contractor is not entitled for any
delay time on account of this event under the relevant provisions of the Contract.
6.7: Event No.2.2.7-G:
Delay in issuance of issued for construction (IFC) drawings of Chenawan Road.

The Contractor, while describing this event, has reproduced the same contents as of the
previous event (Event No.2.2.6-F) except changing the last para under the title ‘’Discussion’’
and also changing the table and Timeline given at the end of this event. In this last para, the
Contractor contends that the progress of works at Chenawan Road with reference to
approved Base-line Programme was adversely affected due to delay in issuance of IFC
drawings by the Engineer; whereas he was prepared to execute the works as per Baseline
Programme and had mobilized all the required sources at Project Site.
The Contractor asserts that due to delay in issuance of drawings IFC for Horizontal and
Vertical cross-sections(which were received by the Contractor on May09,214), he was unable to achieve
the planned target dates and this delay has resulted into both loss of time, and idling of the
resources mobilized by the Contractor at Site. The Contractor is claiming a delay time of 70
days (from 28th February, 2014 to 9th May, 2014) on account of this event.


This event has been added by the Contractor in continuation of event No. 2.2.13-M of his
request for EOT#1 for Main Barrage Works whereby the Engineer has already determined a
delay time of 77 days from 1st November 2013 to 16th January 2014 on interim basis at that
time.
After a careful examination of this event, it has been observed that the Contractor has
repeated almost the whole ‘’Brief Summary’’ of the previous event (Event No.2.2.6-F) except
changing the last para under the title ‘’Discussion’’ and changing the table and
Timeline given at the end of this event. The briefed summary provided by the
Contractor has no relevancy with the event under consideration. The Contractor has,
however, included the relevant correspondence as a back up at the end of this even
but has not substantiated this event.
It has been found that the Contractor has also not followed the prescribed procedure as
stipulated in Sub-Clause20.1. Pursuant to this Sub-Clause, it was required by the Contractor
to submit a fully detailed claim regarding this event, within 42 days after the
Contractor became aware (or should have become aware) of the event or
circumstance giving rise to the claim, or within such other period as may be
proposed by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer; which includes full
supporting particulars of the basis of the claim and of the extension of time and/or
additional payment claimed.
Physically, the Contractor submitted his claim for EOT after about six months later for this
alleged delaying event against the specified timeframe of 42 days, without getting any
approval by the Engineer. Furthermore, he has also failed to substantiate any delay or
disruption of Works due to the drawings specified in his submission. The record shows that
the Contractor himself could not submit the detailed design for E&M works as per his
programme of works due to change of his nominated sub-Contractor (for mechanical works);
and also could not follow his schedule for preliminary works; like Concrete batching Plant,
approval of borrow areas, approval of Site Workshop ( for mechanical works) and other
arrangements at Site before execution of Site. It further reveals from the record that the
Contractor submitted his method statement for Engineer’s approval on March 29,2014 to
execute this road work against his planned dates of November04, to
November22,2013.Similarly,he has not got approval of road material as per his plan dates
specified in the Baseline Progamme of Works. Thus, it may be safely inferred that the
Contractor himself could not follow his baseline pogamme and some overwhelming delays,
particularly on account of E& M Works were on his part which were concurrent/parallel with
the alleged delay in issuance of the relevant drawings IFC of Road. The Engineer considers
that it is not possible for him to evaluate any time without substantiation of this event by the
Contractor with cogent evidences.
The Engineer considers that the Contractor’s claim without substantiation, has no grounds
on the basis of available data and he has not suffered any loss of time and cost due to
alleged delay time. The Engineer therefore, determines that the Contractor is not entitled for
any delay time on account of this event under the relevant provisions of the Contract.
6.8 Event No.2.2.8-H:

Delay Caused by “Adverse Climatic Conditions at Site”
The Contractor Contention:-The Contractor contends “Exceptionally adverse climatic
conditions having prevailed intermittently during the period March 01, 2014 to September
30, 2014 in the form of inclement weather and heavy rain fall had prevented the execution of
work on site, which has caused delay. As per data provided by Meteorological Office (Copy
of data provided attached for ease of reference Annex-C) it is evident that climatic vagaries
were exceptionally adverse since heavy down pour has construction activity to go on un-
interruptedly”.
The Contractor has claimed a delay of 27 days on account of this event.
The Engineer’s Analysis:-

The Contractor has provided rainfall data of Gujranwala city to substantiate his claim of
delay in works due to exceptionally adverse climatic conditions which is not relevant to the
project area.
Further the Contractor has not substantiated his claim of 27 days delay in works due to
adverse climatic conditions based on climatic data of the project area in past years.
The Contractorneitherprovided relevant data to support his claimnorsubstantiated his stance.
The Contractors contention of delay in works on account of this event is therefore
considered null and void.
6.9 Event No.2.2.9-I:

In-effective Site Possession for Construction of Recreation Park
The Contractor’s Contention
The Contractor contends “The progress of works at “Recreational Park” with reference to the
approved Baseline Programme was adversely affected due to delay in approval of design by
the Engineer and ineffective site possession to the Contractor. The Contractor was prepared
to execute the works as per Baseline Programme and had mobilized all the required
resources at project site but was unable to achieve the planned targets due to factors which
are attributable to the Engineer/Employer. The Contractor submitted the Layout Plan and
conceptual design drawings to the Engineer for approval however the Engineer did not
approve the drawings till cut-off date of 30 th September 2014 of EOT-2 request. Moreover,
the Contractor also expressed its concerns about ineffective site possession in its various
letters to the Engineer. As a result of the aforementioned the Contractor suffered both loss
of time and idling of the resources mobilized at site”
The Contractor has claimed a delay of 214 days for delayed site possession and delayed
approval of design drawings of Recreational Park.

Please refer to Sub-Clause 1.9 of the General Conditions of Contract which states;
“The Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer whenever the Works are likely to be
delayed or disrupted if any necessary drawing or instruction is not issued to the Contractor
within a particular time, which shall be reasonable. The notice shall include details of the
necessary drawing or instruction, details of why and by when it should be issued, and the
nature and amount of the delay or disruption likely to be suffered if it is late.
c) An extension of time for any such delay, if completion is or will be delayed, under
d) Payment of any such Cost plus profit, which shall be included in the Contract Price.
3.5 (Determinations) to agree or determine these matters.”
This event has been reviewed in the light of pertinent Contract provisions and noted that the
Contractor did not serve any notice to the Engineer warranted under Sub-Clause 1.9 of GCC
for the delay in approval of layout plan and conceptual design of Recreational Park.
Therefore, the Contractor’s claim of delay in the activities of Recreational Park due to
delayed approval of layout plan and conceptual design of the same is not valid under the
Contract provisions.
The Contractor vide letter DEL/NKB/ICB-01/SO/EN/1343 dated 2 nd September 2014 notified

the Engineer under Sub-Clauses 2.1, 8.1 and 20.1 of the Conditions of the Contract and
stated that the possession of site for Recreational Park has not been provided to the
Contractor. The Contractor further contends in the summary of the event stating as “the
Contractor also expressed its concerns about ineffective site possession in its various letters
to the Engineer”.
The above statement of the Contractor shows that the possession of site was given, but it
was ineffective. The Contractor has not substantiated his stance with facts that the
possession of site was ineffective and no activity could be executed there. Therefore, the
Contractor’s claim of extension of time on account of in-effective site possession of
Recreational Park is not accepted.
6.10Event No.2.2.10-J:
In-Effective Site Possession and UnreasonableDelay in Approval of Design / Drawings
of “Colony School”
The Contractor’s Contention

The Contractor contends “The progress of works at “Colony School” with reference to the
approved Baseline Programme was adversely affected due to delay in approval of shop
drawings by the Engineer and ineffective site possession to the Contractor. The Contractor
was prepared to execute the works as per Baseline Programme and had mobilized all the
required resources at project site but was unable to achieve the planned targets due to
factors which are attributable to the Engineer/Employer. The Contractor submitted the shop
drawings to the Engineer for approval however the Engineer did not approve the drawings
till cut-off date of 30th September 2014 of EOT-2 request. Moreover, the Contractor also
expressed its concerns about ineffective site possession in its various letters to the
Engineer. As a result of the aforementioned the Contractor suffered both loss of time and
idling of the resources mobilized at site”
The Contractor further contends that actual date of site possession of Colony School was
18th June 2014 and approval of shop drawing was not granted up to 30th September 2014.
The Contractor has claimed a delay of 110 days for delayed site possession and 214 days
for delay in approval of Shop drawings.
Please refer to Sub-Clause 1.9 of the General Conditions of Contract which states;
“The Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer whenever the Works are likely to be
delayed or disrupted if any necessary drawing or instruction is not issued to the Contractor
within a particular time, which shall be reasonable. The notice shall include details of the
necessary drawing or instruction, details of why and by when it should be issued, and the
nature and amount of the delay or disruption likely to be suffered if it is late.
e) An extension of time for any such delay, if completion is or will be delayed, under
f) Payment of any such Cost plus profit, which shall be included in the Contract Price.
3.5 (Determinations) to agree or determine these matters.”
Further Sub-Clause 2.1 of the General Conditions of Contract is referred which States;
“The Employer shall give the Contractor right of access to and possession of, all parts of the
Site within the time (or times) stated in the Contract Data. If no such time is stated in the
Contract Data, the Employer shall give the Contractor right of access to, and possession of,
the Site within such times as required to enable the Contractor to proceed without disruption
in accordance with the program submitted under Sub-Clause 8.3 (Program). Sub-Clause 2.1
of particular Conditions of Contract Part-A – Contract Data stipulates Time for access to the
Site as “By Commencement Date”.
If the Contractor suffers delay and/or incurs Cost as a result of a failure by the Employer to
give any such right or possession within such time, the Contractor shall give notice to the
Engineer and shall be entitled subject to Sub-Clause 20.1 (Contractor’s Claims) to:
(c) An extension of time for any such delay, if completion is or will be delayed, under
(d) Payment of any such Cost plus profit, which shall be included in the Contract Price.”
The matter has been investigated in view of the pertinent Contract provisions and noted that
the Contractor did not serve any notice to the Engineer warranted under Sub-Clauses1.9
&2.1 of GCC for the delay in works due to delay in handing over the site of Colony School
Building or delay in approval of design drawing or shop drawings for the same. The
Contractor’s claim on account of this event is therefore not valid under the Contract
provisions.
6.11Event No. 2.2.11-K:

Unreasonably delay in approval of design/drawings of “Basic Health Unit with Allied
Buildings”
As observed in some other events, the Contractor has copied/repeated the first two
paragraph of the previous event (2.2.10-J) while describing brief summary of this event. In
3rd para onwards,the Contactor contends that he submitted the revised drawings for Basic
Health Unit(BHU) and allied buildings on March19,2014vide letter #628.The Engineer
indicated further comments/changes on these drawings via letter 476 dated
April07,2014.The Contractor also contends that he submitted the shop drawings of Electrical
works of BHU for Engineer’s approval vide letter #745 dated Aril11,2014,besides submission
of revised shop drawings onApil26,2014 after incorporating the Engineer’s comments. The
Contractor states that the Engineer approved the shop drawings with the remarks ‘’except as
noted’’ on April30,2014 vide his leer #883 and clarified that the Doctor’s residence had
certain changes which were marked in red. The Contractor urges that he submitted the
method statement accordingly vide letter #1068 datedJune19, 2014 for the construction of
BHU with allied buildings for the approval by the Engineer. The Contractor further states that
the above said method statement was re-submitted by him on June26, 2014 and the revised
shop drawings for electrical works of BHU with allied buildings on july 29,2014 after making
all necessary changes which were indicated by the Engineer.
The Contractor contends that the Engineer did not respond in timely manner to the
Contractor’s above said requests for approval of design and site possession and resultantly
the progress of works at “Basic Health Unit with Allied Buildings” with reference to the
approved Baseline Programme was adversely affected due to delay in approval of Civil and
Electrical shop drawings by the Engineer. The Contractor further asserts that he was
prepared to execute the works as per Baseline Programme and had mobilized all the
required resources at project site but was unable to achieve the planned targets due to
factors which are attributable to the Engineer/Employer. The Contractor asserts that he has
been submitting shop drawings regularly to the Engineer for approval which were however,
delayed by the Engineer.
The Contractor states that he received the approval of shop drawings of Basic Health Unit &
Allied Buildings on 24thJuly 2014 and on this basis, he is claiming a delay of 146 days (from
February28, 2014 to July24, 2014) on account of this event.
A careful review of the available record reveals that the Contractor has never ever given any
notice to the Engineer regarding this event; either under Sub-Clauses 1.9 (in case of delay
drawings) or under Sub-Clause 20.1(to show his intention to claim EOT and/or additional
cost). The Contractor’s claim for extension of time, is therefore, has no basis and he is not
entitled for any time on account of this event under the provisions of Contract.
6.12: EVENT No. 2.2.12-L
Unreasonably delayed approval of design/drawings of “Flood Control Office”.
The contractor has copied/repeated the first two paragraph of the previous event
(2.2.10-J) while describing brief summary of this event. From 3rd para onwards, the
Contactor states that he gave a 3rd reminder to the Engineer for approval of Layout for Flood
Control Office vide letter #1388 dated Semptember24, 2014 and through this letter, he also
notified to the Engineer under Sub-Clause 1.9, 8.3, 8.4 and 20.1of COC. The Contractor
further states that Engineer’s delay in approval of drawings of the Regulation Office /Flood
Control Office might delay the Time for Completion of the works.
The Contractor contends that the progress of works at “Flood Control Office” with reference
to the approved Baseline Programme was adversely affected due to delay in approval of
conceptual layout plan by the Engineer. He asserts that he was prepared to execute the
works as per Baseline Programme and had mobilized all the required resources at project
site but was unable to achieve the planned targets due to factors which are attributable to
the Engineer/Employer. The Contractor states that he submitted the layout plan and
conceptual design drawings to the Engineer for approval; however the Engineer did not
approve the drawings till cut-off date of 30th September 2014.Resultantly,he has suffered
both loss of time and idling of the resources at site.
The Contractor has claimed a delay of 214 days (from 1st March 2014 to 30th September
2014) on account of this event.
The Contractor has included only one letter as a backup at the end of this event through
which he has notified to the Engineer under GCC Sub-Clause 1.9, 8.3, 8.4 and 20.1 and has
stated that Engineer’s delay in approval of drawings of Regulation office / Flood Control
office might delay completion of works for the purpose of GCC Sub-Clause10.1. The record
shows that the Engineer has issued the drawings of the buildings of Regulation / Flood
Control Office on 14th June 2014 as depicted from the Engineer’s letter
5065044/SMEC/0.55/1353-2014 dated 1st October 2014 which was written in response to
the Contractor above said letter.
The Engineer considers that merely writing a generic letter by referring contract clauses
does not entitle the Contractor for an EOT under the provisions of the Contract. The
Engineer therefore determines that the Contractor has not suffered any loss of time and he
is not entitled for any time on account of this event under the relevant provisions of the
Contract.
6.13EVENT No. 2.2.13-M:
Delay caused by reconstruction and remedial Works after “Super Flood”
Contractor’s Contention:
The Contractor Contends “Failure of the Engineer to comply with the contractual obligation
to provide the Drawings IFC to the Contractor well in time, become a major cause of the
damages faced by the Contractor due to the super flood confronted month of September
2014. Late provision of said requisite ceased the contractor from completing the unfinished
works taken in hand in first working season with in the same season.”
The Contractor further contends “He had to perform additional remedial works to restart the
job inside the river and make the already constructed structures workable for further
completion. These works became pre-requisite to restart the unfinished activities and added
up to the overall delay in completion of the works.”
The Contractor also states “In view of the foregoing and numerous notices, the Contractor
cannot implement the approved Baseline Schedule due to failure of the Engineer to issue the
required Drawings IFC in timely manner and unforeseeable disastrous event of “Super Flood”
occurred. Therefore, the provisions of Sub-Clause 1.9 & 8.4 (C) of GCC entitles the contractor
for extension of time for such delay. The entitlement under Sub-Clause 1.9 of GCC in
conjunction with provisions of Sub-Clauses8.4 &20.1 of GCC, is to be given the consideration it
warrants by the Engineer invoking Sub-Clause 3.5 of GCC.”
Please refer Paras-2 & 3 of Sub-Clause 5.10 of the Special Provisions which state “The
Contractor shall be responsible to protect the all works under the Contract from floods during
the project period. If for any reason the river bed level goes down beyond the foundation
levels of the weir then he shall fill that area as per requirement of the Contract up to design
bed levels of the Weir without any cost Implication on the
Contract………………………………………………………. The contractor will insure proper
protection to Works against weir flows, scour, accretions and dropping of shutters”. This
Aspect has already been highlighted by the Engineer in correspondences exchanged
between the Engineer and the Contractor. As for as delay in issuance of IFC drawings is
concerned, the Contractor has made it subject of other events and would be responded
while analyzing those events.
Therefore under the Contract provisions the Contractor is responsible to protect the works
and his site facilities i.e plants, stores etc. against flood and remedy the damages.
The Contractor in the baseline schedule had taken the period from 15th July 2014 to 15th
September 2014 as flood season and no work had been planned for this period. Arrival of
flood was started on 4th September 2014 and the flood was passed completely by 7th
September 2014 i.e. this incident took place in the flood season. The Contractor after the
flood In accordance with approved baseline schedule started construction of coffer dam on
18th September 2014 and Installation of dewatering system on 22 nd September 2014. The
Contractor has therefore resumed construction activities after the flood season in
accordance with approved baseline schedule;
Under the Contract Provisions the Contractor’s EOT claim on account of this event is
therefore not justified.
6.14 EVENT No. 2.2.14-N:

Additional time required for extra works “Concrete Bored Piles”
The contractor has reproduced the first two paragraph of the previous event
(2.2.10-J) while describing brief summary of this event. From 3rd para onwards, the
Contactor states that he reminded the Engineer on July15, 2014 to provide drawings IFC of
the ‘’details of Concrete Bored Piles’’ among others structures and gave notice to the
Engineer under Sub-Clause 1.9, 8.3, 8.4 and 20.1of COC.
The Contractor vide letter #1180 dated July15,2014 urges that changes/additions noted on
the drawings are required to be dealt under Sub-Clause12 [Measurement and Evaluation] and
Sub-Clause13 [Variation and Adjustment]; which will change the sequence of activities thereby
affecting the progress of Works together with substantial change in the Contract price.
The Contractor further states that shop drawings were approved by the Engineer on August
27,2014 with comments marked in red colour on the drawings which were submitted by the
Contractor on August 23,2014.The Contractor submitted the revised shop drawings on
August30,2014 which were approved by the Engineer vide letter #1378 dated September
20,2014.The Contractor submitted the method statement for piling works on September20,
2014 which was resubmitted after incorporating the proposed changes by the Engineer
onSeptmber29,2014.
The Contractor contends that he had not considered additional time for extra work i.e.
“Concrete Bored Piles” in the Baseline Programme submitted by the Contractor under Sub-
Clause 8.3 which was duly approved by the Engineer. The Contractor has claimed 161 days
and 95 days for LCC Head Regulator and Left Side Barrage Works respectively on account
of this event.
The Engineer considers on the basis of available data,that the Contractor’s claim is not
alleged delay time. The Engineer thus determines that the Contractor is not entitled for any
delay time on account of this event under the relevant provisions of the Contract.
Engineer’s Analysis:
A careful review of the event reveals that the Contractor has not followed the prescribed
procedure for claiming additional time. Although he served notice under Sub-Clause 8.3 and
8.4(a) vide his letter #1180 dated July15, 2014 but has not submitted his detailed claim with
supporting particulars within the specified timeframe of 42 days as required under Sub-
Clause20.1of COC.
The record shows that the Contractor submitted his claim for EOT after about six months
later against the specified timeframe of 42 days without getting any prior approval by the
Engineer. Furthermore, he has also failed to substantiate any delay or disruption of Works
due to the alleged delayed drawings specified in his submission. Practically, it is on record
that the Contractor himself could not submit the detailed design/parameters for E&M works
as per his programme of works due to change of his nominated sub-Contractor (for
mechanical works),resultantly, the design of civil works of Panel C was also delayed as both
are interdependence with each other. Furthermore, the Contractor also could not follow his
schedule for preliminary works; like Concrete batching Plant, approval of borrow areas,
approval of Site Workshop (for mechanical works) and other arrangements at Site.
Nonetheless, it is also a fact that there was a delay due to change in design because of the
physically underground soil conditions of Barrage and LCC head Regulator. Sub-soil
investigation Report reveals that underground soil strata of Barrage and LCC head regulator
have low bearing capacity. Hence, both the structures were re-designed and Concrete Bored
Piles were provided under the foundations of the abutment of Main Barrage (L/S) and LCC
Head Regulator. The Engineer considers that these piles work was an additional one, for
which the Contractor may be entitled to an extension of time under Sub-Clause 8.4(a).
The record depicts that IFC drawings of piles for the abutments of Barrage and LCC Head
Regulator were issued by the Engineer vide letters 5055044/SMEC/0.75/1240-2014 dated
6th August 2014 and 5055044/SMEC/0.75/1244-2014 dated 13th August 2014 respectively.
The shop drawings for the same were approved by the Engineer Vide letters
5055044/SMEC/0.75/1279-2014 dated 27th August 2014 and 5065044/SMEC/0.75/1327-
2014 dated 17th September 2014 accordingly. The record further reveals that 72 number
Concrete Bored Piles were added under the foundations of the abutments of the Main
Barrage (L/S only), and 114 number were added under the foundations of the abutments of
LCC Head Regulator as an additional work. The time consumed for awaiting the said
drawings and executing the concrete piles has observed parallel with the Contractor’s own
delaying time for not providing the design parameters of E%&M Works.
The Contractor has not substantiated the event with supporting particulars. However, the
Engineer considers that this event has a potential and some additional time may be
determined by the Engineer provided that, the Contractor substantiate this event with
supporting particulars/evidences as per physical proceedings relevant to this event at Site.
6.15 EVENT No. 2.2.15-O:
Additional time required for extra works “Engineered Fill”
The Contractor, while describing brief summary of this event has reproduced the first two
paragraph of the previous event (2.2.10-J). From 3rd para onwards, the Contactor states that
he submitted the rate analysis of compacted sand cement stabilized soil under the
crest/raft/pier foundation vide letter # 533 dated March04, 2014 on July15, 2014 and also
pointed out that complete specification and related testing procedures with testing frequency
have not been provided by the Engineer. He also showed his apprehension on production of
Engineering Fill which may be difficult to supply within a short time of 120 days and gave a
notice to the Engineer under Sub-Clause13.1 of COC.
The Contractor submitted Method Statement for Engineering Fill on March10, 2014 and re-
submitted on April17, 2014 vide letter # 790 after including the Engineer’s comments/advice,
for the approval of the Engineer. The Contractor requested for new drawings as per proposal
of the R.E Barrage vide his letter of April14, 2014.He further warns the Engineer vide letter
#827 dated April 26,2014 regarding the delayed issuance of drawings of foundation in the
middle portion of Barrage Structure and the possible implications during the flood.
The Engineer apprised the Contractor vide letter # 913 dated May09,2014 that most of all
the drawings have been provided to the Contractor and show his concern over the slow
progress of Works due to poor arrangement of material and QA/QC arrangement. The
Contractor submitted its proposal for conducting additional tests (Plate Load Tests) to
determine the bearing capacity of Engineering Fill via letter #971 dated May27, 2014.The
Contractor contends that he had not considered additional time for extra work (i.e.
“Engineering Fill”) in his Baseline Programme submitted by the Contractor under Sub-Clause
8.3 which was duly approved by the Engineer.
The Contractor further states that this change / addition in Works are required to be dealt
under the provisions of Sub-Clause 12 (Measurements & Evaluation) and Sub-Clause 13
(Variations & Adjustments) of Conditions of Contract. The Contractor claims that he has
given a Notice to the Engineer under GCC Sub-Clause 8.3 and 8.4 (a) and due to the
aforesaid variation, his sequence of work activities will be changed and thereby affecting the
progress of Works together with substantial change in the Contract Price”. The Contractor
has claimed 76 days on the basis of planned start and finished date for this additional item of
‘’Engineered Fill’’ under this event.
Engineer’s Analysis:
A careful review of the event reveals that the Contractor has not given any notice under Sub-
Clause 20.1[Contractor’s Claims] to show his intention for any extension of the Time for
Completion and /or any additional payment. However, he has served notice under Sub-
Clause 13.1[Right to Vary], and has also requested to issue new drawings under Sub-
Clause3.3 of COC vide his letter #772 dated April 14, 2014. The Contractor has also
requested the Engineer vide his letter #971 dated May27,2014 to accord approval of the
variation under Sub-Clause3.5[Determinations] regarding carrying out bearing capacity of
the variation item(Engineering Fill).
The record shows that the Contractor has neither given notice to show his intention for any
claim nor he has substantiated his stance to claim EOT/ additional cost under this event. The
corresponding letters which the Contractor has appended at the end of this event pertains
with the routine correspondence and do not indicate any disruption or delay or his intention
to claim under Sub-Clause20.1 of COC on account of this event.
The Engineer concludes on the basis of available data, that the Contractor’s claim is not
justified without any substantiation and he has not suffered any loss of time and cost due to
alleged delay time. The Engineer determines that the Contractor is not entitled for any
additional time on account of this event under the relevant provisions of the Contract.
-------
To ensure structural stability of the Weirs of Barrage and LCC head regulator existing soil
was replaced with compacted engineered fill by the Engineer. This constitutes to be an
additional work which requires both time and cost. The Contractor’s claim of additional time
and cost on account of this event is therefore justified.
The drawings of the engineered fill were issued by the Engineer vide letter 065044/SMEC
/CON/0504-2014 dated 15th April 2014.The Work was started by the contractor on 19 th April
2014 and continued up to 7th June 2014. Again it was started on 18 th Jan 2015 and
completed on 12th January 2015. This implies that it took 58 (4+12+31+7+4) days to place
the engineered fill of the barrage from bays 1~28. The Contractor claim of additional time of
56 days (from 16th April 2014 to 11th June 2014) is therefore justified to place engineered fill.
Subsequent activity to the engineered fill was concrete of Panels-C which was also delayed
consequently. The contractor has claimed the period from 2ndJune 2014 to 7th April 2015) for
the activities of Panels-C in impacted as planned Programme attached in he EOT-2 request
as Annex-B.
Concrete placing of C-Panels was started on 18 th May 2014 and up to 9 th July 2014 C-
Panels of 21 bays (Bays 27~7) were completed. This implies that it took 60 days (including 7
days for lean concrete, formwork erection, fixing of steel reinforcement and 1 st stage
embeddedparts for the first panel) to complete C-Panels of 21 bays. Then on prorate basis
80 days (From 11th May 2014 to 30thJuly 2014) were required to complete C-Panels of 28
Bays of the Barrage.
5. Delay Impact Analysis:
This analysis has been made using Impacted as Planned Method to calculate EOT-2 for
Main Barrage Works by adding delays calculated by the Engineer as separate activities in
the approved baseline schedule. The difference in completion date of Main Barrage Works in
the baseline schedule before adding delays and after adding delays is taken as the net delay
of the Main Barrage Works.
Following activities which have caused delays had been added in the baseline schedule
(which was prepared on primavera) to incorporate the delays calculated by the Engineer.
Sr.#Activity ID Activity Description

01 BS049362.2.3-C “EOT-2, Delay in issuance ofIFC drawings of Barrage D.W & F.L”
02 BSL056852.2.4-C“EOT-2, Delay in issuance ofIFC drawings of Barrage Abutment”
03 HR033362.2.5-E “EOT-2,Delay in issuance of IFC drawings of LCC HR & Abutment”
04 BSL05096 2.2.6-F “EOT-2,Delay in issuance of IFC drawings of Tendon Profile”
05 BRW031362.2.7-G “Delayed issuance of IFC drawings ofChenawan Road.”
06 BSLC05810 2.2.14-N “EOT-2, Additional time for extra works of Concrete Bored
Piles”
07 BSLC05530 2.2.15-O “EOT-2,Additional time for extra works of Engineered Fill”
Completion date of Main Barrage Works in BaselineSchedule : 07-10-

2016
Completion date of Main Barrage Works adding EOT-1 delays in B.LSchedule: 25-01-2017
Completion date of Main Barrage Works adding EOT-2 delays in B.LSchedule:12-05-2017
Therefore extended completion date of Main Barrage Works as per scheduled analysis is
16thMay 2017.
EXTENSION OF TIME (EOT-1&2)
Extended Date of Extended

Sr.
Completion as per days for
No Description Date of Completion
Scheduled Completion
.
Analysis (No)
EOT-1 for Main Barrage Contract comp. date

1 Jan. 25, 2017 110 days
Works Oct. 07, 2016
EOT-2 for Main Barrage EOT-1 Comp date

2 May. 12, 2017 107days
Works Jan.25, 2016
6. CONCLUSION
The Contract provides that the Engineer shall extend the Time for Completion if an event
occurs pursuant to Sub-Clause 8.4 of the General Conditions which would prevent the work
being completed by the Contractual Completion Date.
The submission made by the Contractor has been examined / analyzed on the basis of
available information & relevant Contract provisionsand in accordance with the requirements
of Sub-Clause 3.5 in conjunction with Sub-Clause 8.4 which entitle the Contractor to
extension of time.
Having examined the events and documents, the Engineer has determined further extension
of time (EOT-2) for107 daysfrom26-01-2017 to 12-05-2017 for Main Barrage Works (Civil,
Electrical and Mechanical Works) which is reflected in the Impacted as Planned Schedule.
_____________
Ahsam Arshad“ AMAN ULLAH KHAN
Regional Manager Contract Management
(SMEC International Pty. Ltd. (AUS) New Khanki Barrage and
The Engineer’s Representative
Joint venture of SMEC (Lead Firm),WS Atkins,
EGC&BARQAAB

Contractor EOT - Anaylasis Event-Wise

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contractor EOT - Anaylasis Event-Wise

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW KHANKI BARRAGE AND AUXILIARY WORKS

DRAFT REPORT OF ENGINEER’S INTERIM DETERMINATION

Title : Contractor’s Request for Extension of Time(EOT) for Civil,

Date of Claim : 2nd January 2015

Cut-off Date : 30thSeptember 2014

Time Claimed : 477 days (26-01-2017 to 16-05-2018)

The Contractor vide letter at DEL/NKB/ICB-01/SO/EN/1750 dated 2 nd January 2015

01.2.2.1-A: Delay in issuance of drawings for construction (IFC Drawings) concerning

Sub-Clause 1.9 Delayed Drawings or Instruction

5.4 Sub-Clause 3.5 Determinations

The Contractor shall be entitled subject to Sub-Clause 20.1 (Contractor’s Claims) to an

4. Event-Wise Analysis / Assessment Of Time Lost As Claimed

6.1Event No. 2.2.1- A:

6.2 Event No. 2.2.2-B:

Delay in issuance of drawings for Construction concerning (IFC Drawings) “Barrage

 Barrage Main Weir

Sub-Clause 1.9 Delayed Drawings or Instruction

The Engineer’s Analysis:

 Barrage Main Weir

The Engineer’s Analysis

Delay in issuance of IFC Drawings for Construction (Drawing IFC) concerning

The Contractor’s Contention:

Applicable Contract Clauses:

Sub-Clause 1.9 Delayed Drawings or Instruction

The Engineer’s Analysis

Applicable Contract Clauses:

Sub-Clause 1.9 Delayed Drawings or Instruction

The Engineer’s Analysis

6.6: Event No.2.2.6-F:

Delay in issuance of drawings for Construction concerning “Barrage Pre-stressed

6.7: Event No.2.2.7-G:

Delay in issuance of issued for construction (IFC) drawings of Chenawan Road.

Applicable Contract Clauses:

Sub-Clause 1.9 Delayed Drawings or Instruction

The Engineer’s Analysis:

6.8 Event No.2.2.8-H:

The Engineer’s Analysis:-

6.9 Event No.2.2.9-I:

The Engineer’s Analysis

The Contractor vide letter DEL/NKB/ICB-01/SO/EN/1343 dated 2 nd September 2014 notified

The Contractor’s Contention

6.11Event No. 2.2.11-K:

6.12: EVENT No. 2.2.12-L

Unreasonably delayed approval of design/drawings of “Flood Control Office”.

The Contractor’s Contention:

The Engineer’s Analysis:

6.14 EVENT No. 2.2.14-N:

The Contractor’s Contention:

6.15 EVENT No. 2.2.15-O:

Additional time required for extra works “Engineered Fill”

The Contractor’s Contention:

Sr.#Activity ID Activity Description

Completion date of Main Barrage Works in BaselineSchedule : 07-10-

EXTENSION OF TIME (EOT-1&2)

Extended Date of Extended

EOT-1 for Main Barrage Contract comp. date

EOT-2 for Main Barrage EOT-1 Comp date

You might also like