This is the belated final installment of Gerald W. Ittig’s situations.
Situation 6: The essence of time
The CPM schedule shows plumbing work and electrical work as co-critical. The mechanical sub is slow and inefficient, so you wait to start your work until the mechanical sub is well ahead. The plumbing is completed 100 days late, and you finish 30 days after.
A. Both you and the mechanical sub are equally liable for 130 days of delay.
B. The mechanical sub is liable for 100 days of delay, and you for 130 days.
C. You are liable for only 30 days of delay.
D. You are liable for 30 days delay, but you are entitled to 100 days time extension, so you have a net delay claim against the owner for 70 days.
Replies
D
As long as you can PROVE that waiting for the plumber to get ahead did not contribute any delay.
SamT
If it could have been done, you should have worked in a professional manner and completed your portion of the job on the original schedule. And you should have kept the PM advised as to what was happening, and of any delays to your work caused by the mechanical sub. You're on the hook for 130 days unless you can prove extenuating circumatsnces.
"Put your creed in your deed." Emerson
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
Did I miss # 5 or something?
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=93096.1
I would say D
A.
The mechanical sub may be slow and inefficient but you are even slower and less efficient. Or so it would appear.
Of course any contract where two independent contractors can each be held liable for a delay is going to be awfully tough to enforce.
You're kidding right?
According to the PM, I was supposed to start when and finish when; and I didn't because why?
Because who's plan went awry?
I had a start and finish date in my contract stating that it was the PM's responsibility to get me on the project on the date the contract called for.
I called 2 weeks and then 1 week prior to my start date and the PM put me off both times with an indefinate start date.
What was the ?
[email protected]
the PM put me off both times with an indefinate start date.
Hope you got that in writing."Put your creed in your deed." Emerson
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
Fax or email, take your choice.[email protected]
Right. My point is you need it in writing, or its useless."Put your creed in your deed." Emerson
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
It does not appear that the PM put off the start of the electrical work. The electrical contractor (us) put off starting because it would not be efficient for the electrical contractor to start. Perhaps the late start was the cause of the late finish.Lawyers will meet and decide who is liable for any delays.
My supposition is that the PM communicated to the electrical contractor a valid start time and was unable to fulfill that promise.
Who's responsibility IS it to see that the project proceeds on schedule?
So now from your reasoning, it would be prudent to include a clause in your contract as a sub that states a duration of time to complete once given the ok to start work as per the PM.
Start this week, next week or Christmas week, this is how long it will take me to finish; just tell me when to show up.
edit
Your're right to a point. The electrical contractor delayed his start time. Was he given permission and acknowledgement from the PM? Or was he using just prudence in not starting sooner because the plumber was slow?
Or was the PM over zealous in his scheduling?
I say it still goes back to the PM.
I can't trim till the rock and taping are done. That's beyond my control.
Same reasoning applies here.
[email protected]
Edited 8/9/2007 7:48 pm ET by EricPaulson
what Eric said.
carpenter in transition