First thing to say is programme does not supersede contract data. I think the programme included is frankly a bit of a red herring. What should have happened is that when the contract was signed - the revised starting date and hence Completion Date should have been amended accordingly. Starting date and Completion Date are those shown in contract data – unless superseded by a mechanism within the contract. A programme showing something different is NOT a mechanism to change either of them.
As a general point if the Completion Date was 40 weeks and the planned Completion was 29 weeks then the gap is terminal float which is owned in your example by Subcontractor B.
If the contract was signed upon the original dates – then the lack of access would have been a compensation event that should have then been assessed in terms of its impact on planned Completion which in turn would then entitle the Completion Date to be moved by the same amount. You will have to follow this rule to ascertain entitlement.
If Subcontractor B showed 29 weeks on site it needs to be ascertained why they then needed 40 weeks on site. If this is due to compensation event(s) then yes they would be entitled to additional prelim type costs – but only costs they can prove they would have incurred. The fact they have been on site for 40 weeks does not instantly give them recourse to claim – it has to be as a result of a specific compensation event. Equally Subcontractor A can not just simply say they were not there for more than 40 weeks so there is NO entitlement. It has to be assessed as a compensation event to decide what the impact on planned completion was
As a general point if the Completion Date was 40 weeks and the planned Completion was 29 weeks then the gap is terminal float which is owned in your example by Subcontractor B.
If the contract was signed upon the original dates – then the lack of access would have been a compensation event that should have then been assessed in terms of its impact on planned Completion which in turn would then entitle the Completion Date to be moved by the same amount. You will have to follow this rule to ascertain entitlement.
If Subcontractor B showed 29 weeks on site it needs to be ascertained why they then needed 40 weeks on site. If this is due to compensation event(s) then yes they would be entitled to additional prelim type costs – but only costs they can prove they would have incurred. The fact they have been on site for 40 weeks does not instantly give them recourse to claim – it has to be as a result of a specific compensation event. Equally Subcontractor A can not just simply say they were not there for more than 40 weeks so there is NO entitlement. It has to be assessed as a compensation event to decide what the impact on planned completion was
