As explained earlier, our first exercise for this submission was to identify possible events which may on further investigation give enti- tlement to an extension of time.
Our second exercise, in essence a rationalisation exercise of our first exercise, identified those Events which were to be analyses for entitle- ment to an Extension of Time under the terms of the Contract; particularly clause 25 which states that, ‘If and whenever it becomes reasonably apparent that the progress of the Works is being or is likely to be delayed . . .’
We also explained, in section A, that ‘It is our position that to be Prospective analysis 187
awarded an extension of time under the Contract, there are “four steps” in the process for reviewing each potential event.’ The ‘four steps’ are,
Step 1; Is the potential event, an Event which under the terms of the Contract between the parties gives entitlement to an extension of time. Step 2; If so, is the progress of the Works being, or likely to be delayed as a result of the Event.
Step 3; If so, is the ‘progress delay’ caused by the Event expected to cause delay to the completion of the Works beyond the Completion Date.
Step 4; If so, to what extent is the Event likely to cause delay to the completion of the Works beyond the Completion Date.
In our second exercise; the rationalisation exercise, we satisfied our- selves that the events as listed on the ‘Schedule of Events’ comply with ‘step 1’ and do give entitlement to an Extension of Time, subject to the results of steps 2, 3 & 4.
Therefore, to comply with steps 2, 3 & 4, we have carried out an Extension of Time Analysis for each of the 762 events. The approach and methodology of the analysis has been fully explained earlier in this submission.
Our main reasons for selecting the Time Impact Analysis methodol- ogy are:
i Time Impact Analysis follows the requirements of clause 25 of the Contract.
ii Time Impact Analysis is recommended to be used to determine extension of time entitlement by a recognised organisation, The Society of Construction Law, and they have published guidelines for its use in their ‘Delay and Disruption Protocol’.
iii Time Impact Analysis has already been used by the Architect to determine and quantify extension of time entitlements during the project.
As stated earlier, we have analysed all 762 Events in accordance with the Time Impact Analysis methodology. To assist the Architect, and others, we have classified the results for each Event into one of five categories, to allow those Events which show the greater period of entitlement to be at the heart of this submission.
This will, we hope, considerably assist the Architect, and the Parties, to reach a speedy resolution on this matter.
This also allows us to demonstrate that this is not a global claim. We are not saying, ‘all of these 762 events delayed the works to the extent that the project was not complete until 8 October 2005’; we have researched, investigated and analysed each Event individually.
The categories we have used to classify each Event are as follows:
• Category 5; minimal delay to the progress of the works, but no likely delay to Completion of the Works beyond the Completion Date.
• Category 4; delay to work/activities in progress, but no likely delay to Completion of the Works beyond the Completion Date.
• Category 3; likely delay to future work/activities, but no likely delay to Completion of the Works beyond the Completion Date. • Category 2; delay or likely delay to the progress of the works, and
likely delay to Completion of the Works beyond the Completion Date.
• Category 1; delay or likely delay to the progress of the works, and likely delay to Completion of the Works beyond the Completion Date. Furthermore, the likely delay to Completion of the Works provides a revised Completion Date later than the previous extended Completion Date.
As stated earlier, whilst category 1 and 2 Events are at the heart of this submission, Events classified as categories 3 to 5 are being further investigated and we reserve the right to re-classify these Events if necessary. Similarly, our initial exercise identified other possible Events which may give entitlement to extensions of time; but these are not being pursued in this submission. However, again, we reserve the right to submit these Events if, after further investigation, we consider they give entitlement to extensions of time.
We now give a synopsis of the Extension of Time Analysis for each Tranche.
b Synopsis of EOT Analysis: Tranche 1
Tranche 1 covers the time period from the Start of the Project to Start of Superstructure Work on 24 January 2003.
For Tranche 1 we have analysed some 110 number Events. The analysis results show the following:
a 11 number category 1 Events. b 42 number category 2 Events. c 57 number category 3, 4 or 5 Events.
The 11 number category 1 Events in chronological order, are: 1 Event T1–008 Internal Works: Internal Walls (clause 25.4.5 &
25.4.6). 4 workdays EOT entitlement, revising the Date for Com- pletion to 8 May 2004.
2 Event T1–011 Internal Works: Internal Walls (clause 25.4.5 & 25.4.6). An additional 5 workdays EOT entitlement, further revis- ing the Date for Completion to 15 May 2004.