Construction Law/Oil and Gas claim
During evaluation of the claim from oil and gas project, I noticed some of the pipe joints failed under quality control due to poor welding quality under Welding Repair joints, as a result there will be work and rework to rectify the defects (as rejected based on QC) and in contract it has referred as welding repair ratio (WRR) ALLOWED AS 3% but on Site it has recorded as 7% for a prolong period (till claim duration). I considered this fact as concurrent delays to make a hurdle for Subcontractor’s claim considering Subcontractor’s own fault as causation to delay in progress simultaneously with Contractor’s material delay, if any, but Subcontractor refute to accept stating there is no relation to concurrent delays to WRR.
However I came to know planning software such as PRIMAVERAL P3, are not mandatory in substantiating delays or delay analysis then how we can substantiate the concurrent delays, since I found WELDING REPAIR RATIO is the right tool to control Subcontractor’s claim.
Thanks and regards
when the contractor claims delay, he has to substantiate his claim by providing details to show that the induced delay has produced an effect on the critical path of the program and as such, the project as a whole was delayed. How this time impact is done will depend on the method used and the available software. if a baseline program was approved then such program will be the bases of such evaluation. When such program is not available , cause and effect can be used to validate the delay period.