Eagle's Nest / Hong Kong                                                                                                                                                                                


QIC CLIENT:
A Joint Venture comprising an international Australian contractor and a Japanese contractor.

THE ISSUES:
The engineer had consistently denied the contractor his entitlement to additional time to complete the works (the extension of time) or, in the alternative, had made an unreasonable determinations of that entitlement. At this point QIC were invited to address the extension of time issue. The question of entitlement was made all the more complicated by claims received by the employer from interface contractors and their revised requirements.

 
CHALLENGES FOR QIC:
Our appointment came at the end of phase one of the works. The main challenge we faced was how to demonstrate the affect any one of the events complained of had or was likely to have upon as many as 22 Key Dates under the contract. For example: how did a delay within the southern approach to the tunnel affect, if at all, the key dates?


QIC ACTIONS:
After first gaining an understanding of the issues identified the need to produce claims in what we called work phases. The first work face was designed to arrange the production of delay schedules for each event and to organise that work by sections of the works. This was necessarily a factual analysis and one that required working closely with the Contractor’s section engineer for each section. In parallel with this initiative we began the production of an as-built programme on another work face. Here we used Primavera enterprise edition (P6). As the delays were scheduled the new activities required to feature within the programme were “fed” into that process. As the programme was completed the “model” as it was referred to was tested using collapsing techniques so as to establish the effect of an event upon one or more key dates.
 

RESULT:
The work when completed was used in detailed negotiations with representatives of the engineer and the employer designed to establish the
additional time to which the Joint Venture was fairly entitled. Whilst these negotiations took place over a lengthy period it is true to say that the Joint Venture’s need for time was substantially satisfied and the ravages of LAD’s avoided.

back to projects