48
مبادرة
#تواصل_تطوير
المحاضرة الثامنة والأربعون من المبادرة مع
الاستاذ الدكتور / هشام عبدالخالق
استاذ إدارة المشروعات بكلية الهندسة بالاسكندرية
بعنوان
Public Private Partnerships(PPP)&
Claim Case Study
التاسعة مساء توقيت مكة المكرمةالأربعاء26أغسطس2020
وذلك عبر تطبيق زووم
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAlfuiqqDkpH9c4x4qMoRxGj3sYkJEiSuLl
علما ان هناك بث مباشر للمحاضرة على القنوات الخاصة بجمعية المهندسين المصريين
ونأمل أن نوفق في تقديم ما ينفع المهندس ومهمة الهندسة في عالمنا العربي
والله الموفق
للتواصل مع إدارة المبادرة عبر قناة التليجرام
https://t.me/EEAKSA
ومتابعة المبادرة والبث المباشر عبر نوافذنا المختلفة
رابط اللينكدان والمكتبة الالكترونية
https://www.linkedin.com/company/eeaksa-egyptian-engineers-association/
رابط قناة التويتر
https://twitter.com/eeaksa
رابط قناة الفيسبوك
https://www.facebook.com/EEAKSA
رابط قناة اليوتيوب
https://www.youtube.com/user/EEAchannal
رابط التسجيل العام للمحاضرات
https://forms.gle/vVmw7L187tiATRPw9
89. Delays and Extension of Time
(Real Case Study)
Prof. Hisham Abdelkhalek
Professor of Construction Engineering and
Management,
Structural Engineering Department,
Alexandria University, Egypt.
90. Outlines
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Project Description
3.0 Method Statement
4.0 The Issue
5.0 Relevant Documents Relied Upon By A.C.
6.0 Intended Execution Strategy
7.0 Chronology & Causes of Delay & Disruption
8.0 The Primary Argument
9.0 Delay Analysis
10.0 Conclusion
91. 1. Introduction
Purpose of the Position paper
In This presentation we will try to answer the following questions
What is position paper?
Document that describe the situation of the issue
What is The main purpose of this case study?
is to show the real one and how to prepare the position paper for such case.
What are the steps and procedure to be followed to prepare a good claim document?
Does it require great effort for such work.
97. 4. The Issue
The parties have been in discussion over Contractor's entitlement to an extension of
time, and the purpose of this Position Paper is to share with The Owner, on a strictly
'without prejudice' basis, Contractor's views as to its entitlement to an extension of time
or its entitlement to complete within a reasonable time. Contractor’s view is that the
facts and matters set out in this Position Paper, all of which are known by The Owner
clearly entitle Contractor to be relieved of the consequences of delayed completion,
together with appropriate compensation, whether in terms of the contractual
mechanisms under the Contract or on the basis that The Owner is responsible for
breaches which are not dealt with by the extension of time mechanism, so that time
can be regarded as being 'at large' and Contractor is entitled to complete within a
reasonable time, with liquidated damages (though not general damages) falling away.
However, in an attempt to bring about a possible resolution or narrowing of issues at a
commercial level, Contractor sets out its position.
98. The Issue
1.1 The parties have been in discussion over
Contractor's entitlement to an extension of
time, and the purpose of this study is to share
with The Owner, Contractor's views as to its:
➢ Entitlement to an Extension Of Time (EOT), or
➢ Its entitlement to complete within a
reasonable time.
99. The Issue
This study describes:
➢ The delays that have occurred
during the construction of the
Intake, Discharge and Related
Works for the Abu Qir Thermal
Power Plant, Units 6&7 Project, and
➢ The effect of these delays upon
the major elements of Plant
specifically the construction of the
new discharge structure and
related works.
100. The Issue
➢ The Owner assigned mobilization area of 1,000 square meters for
Contractor without handover procedures. However, in this
allocated mobilization area, Contractor found two existing gas
pipelines that considered as hazard and not suitable for site
offices. Accordingly, Contractor site mobilization had been
suspended by GASCO Company.
101. The Issue
➢ The Owner assigned another location for site mobilization that
closed to the shoreline. Accordingly, Contractor started
mobilization, but its site mobilization work had also again
suspended by another governmental body, SPA, Shore Protection
Agency.
102. The Issue
➢ The Owner instructed Contractor to mobilize in the first suggested
location by The Owner and coordinate with GASCO in order to
remove pipe material currently on this location. Also that The
Owner will contact GASCO in this regard toward securing
material removal.
103. The Issue
➢ The Owner project for the fourth time assigned another site
mobilization location that considered offsite area, but Contractor
accepted the new location in order to mitigate the delay.
104. The Issue
➢ The Owner failed to provide Contractor with offsite area (11,450
m2) for its offsite use facilities. This delay led to disturbance for
regular works including the production and delivery of RCCP
pipes. Moreover, further delay affected the offsite storage area
activities because of the permits needed from The Ministry of
Agriculture due to the location of proposed area provided by the
The Owner station.
105. The Issue
➢ Contractor confirmed that the offshore permit should be available
before work execution. The Owner submitted for off-shore work
permits to the Shore Protection Agency, SPA, and Ministry of
Defense, MOD. The offshore permit final release was received by
Contractor on the 10th of February, 157 days delay.
106. The Issue
➢ The Owner failed to furnish site benchmarks till 8th December
2009. Accordingly, Contractor was not able to establish the
additional benchmark on target schedule, relevant milestone.
107. The Issue
➢ The Owner has contractual responsibility to handover the project
site clear from any obstacles that could affect the performance of
Contractor.
➢ However, during the construction of diversion channel, two gas
pipelines, 16” and 24”, were found by Contractor. The 16” gas
pipe was diverted on 6th Feb 2010 and the 24” gas pipeline was
also diverted on 14th March 2010.
108. The Issue
➢ The Owner project requested submittal for protection plan for
existing and new buildings due to dewatering activity. Contractor
requested information to submit protection plan for existing
buildings due to dewatering activity. The Owner station failed to
provide the information requested by Contractor.
109. The Issue
➢ The Owner instruction to protect the buildings on shallow
foundations that constructed or be constructed by CP-102
Contractor before approving the dewatering system which
affected the closure of channel.
110. The Issue
➢ The Owner requested removal of obstructions from the runway
according to the governmental civil aviation permit starting from
September 29th , 2010. The Owner instructed Contractor should
reduce its working hours from (63-hours per week) to (31 hours
per week) from (Saturday to Thursday).
➢ Accordingly, Contractor worked on reduced productivity, based
on the work was not continuous and preventing Contractor from
using tower crane.
111. The Issue
Contractor contends that the delays have arisen from acts of
hindrance and/or prevention by The Owner and/or the requirement
for additional works for which Variation Orders should be issued.
➢ Contractor is entitled to extension(s) of time under Clause’s GC15,
GC28, GC29, GC36, GC41, SC6, and SC8 of the Contract. In the
alternative, Contractor is entitled to complete the Works within
reasonable periods of time on the basis that time is ‘at large’.
112. The Issue
➢ Under the Contract and Amendment the new discharge structure
and related work were scheduled to be completed by (will be
submitted in revision 01). While the Intake structure and related
work scheduled to be completed by (will be submitted in revision
01).
➢ The delay analysis demonstrates that Contractor is entitled to
Extension(s) to the Time(s) for Completion for the new discharge
structure and related work to (will be submitted in revision 01).
113. The subsequent sections:
2.0 •Relevant Documents Relied Upon by Contractor.
3.0 •Intended Execution Strategy.
4.0 •Chronology & Causes of Delay & Disruption.
5.0 •Primary Argument.
6.0 •Delay Analysis.
7.0 •Summary.
114. 5.0 Relevant Documents Relied Upon By A.C.
5.1
Introduction
5.2
Contract
10054-CP-119
5.3
Corresponden
ces
5.4
Notifications
115. 5.3 Correspondences
The correspondences for this project sorted as following:
Out GAM which has the code of 10054-9-L19-GAM-XXXXX it means this
letter from Arab contractors to WDPEC Project’s Project manager.
Out GCP which has the code 10054-9-L19-GCP-XXXXX it means this
letter from Arab contractors to WDPEC Project’s construction manager.
In GCP which has the code 10054-9-T19-GCP-XXXXX it means this letter
from WDPEC Project’s construction manager to Arab contractors.
In GAM which has the code 10054-9-L19-GAM-XXXXX it means this letter
from WDPEC Project’s Project manager to Arab Contractor.
116. 5.4 Notifications
A) Owner Caused Delay Notice (Ref. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00011)
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00011 dated October 15, 2009 issued by
Contractor under contract clause GC-29 included the delay of provision on site lay down area of 1000 m2
(mobilization area).
▪ The effect of the delay also stated “The delay impact the contractor’s performance to meet all milestones for which
a construction completion certificate dates are set forth in Exhibit B, article entitled (Commencement, Prosecution,
and Completion of the works)”
▪ PGESCo project reply in Correspondence No. 10054-9-T19-GCP-00007 dated October 18, 2009 with denial.
▪ Contractor responded in Correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00012 dated October 20, 2009 stating
facts to justify the delay event.
▪ PGESCo project reply in Correspondence No. 10054-9-T19-GCP-000022 dated November 1, 2009 with denial.
▪ Contractor responded in Correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00055 dated December 29, 2009 stating facts to
justify the delay event. Owner Caused Delay Notice (Ref. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00051)
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00051 dated December 24, 2009 issued by Contractor
under contract clause GC-29 included the delay of establishing benchmarks.
117. Notifications
B) Owner Caused Delay Notice (Ref. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00053)
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00053 dated December 24, 2009 issued by Contractor
under contract clause GC-29 regarding the contract execution date delay.
D) Owner Caused Delay Notice (Ref. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00263)
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00144 dated April 7, 2010.
▪ Owner delayed in providing an offsite area (11.450 m2) which led to disturbance to regular works, owner nominated a certain piece of
land less than (9000 m2) and requested the contractor to have an agreement with the land lord and pay a tenant cost which is not part
of the contractor scope.
▪ Owner caused delay in providing the contractor by the ministry of agriculture permit which were provided on March
30, 2010, 207 days delay and for area less than mentioned in the contract.
▪ Owner assumed in correspondence No. 10054-9-T19-GCP-00191 dated June 03, 2010 that materials that are received
are stored offshore till time of installation to be installed in one or two days, contractor price and schedule is not
based on this assumption that was not mentioned in the contract.
▪ Contractor had done mitigations to absorb the delay in the delivery of RCCP to site.
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-0094 in getting offshore permits which were received
by the contractor on February 09, 2010 instead of September 06, 2009.
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00138 in removal of gas line which was removed on
March 23, 2010 instead of September 06, 2009.
▪ Contractor had done mitigations to absorb the delay in the delivery of RCCP to site.
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-0094 in getting offshore permits which were received
by the contractor on February 09, 2010 instead of September 06, 2009.
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00138 in removal of gas line which was removed on
March 23, 2010 instead of September 06, 2009.
118. Notifications
▪ Contractor had done mitigations to absorb the delay in the delivery of RCCP to site.
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-0094 in getting offshore permits which were received
by the contractor on February 09, 2010 instead of September 06, 2009.
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00138 in removal of gas line which was removed on
March 23, 2010 instead of September 06, 2009.
E) Owner Caused Delay Notice (Ref. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00402)
▪ Referring to issued change notice no. 3 dated October 29, 2009 and change notice no. 13 dated September 01,
2010, the work in sheet pile walls started on September 15, 2010 rather than July 01, 2010.
▪ Owner caused delay due to site development (float=0), removal of temporary coffer dam (float=1 day) and reroute
of channel (1-4) including removal of sheet pile wall no.12 (float=2 days).
F) Owner Caused Delay Notice (Ref. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00453)
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00144 dated April 7, 2010.
119. Notifications
▪ Owner caused delay in providing an offsite area (11.450 m2) which led to disturbance to regular works, owner
nominated a certain piece of land less than (9000 m2) and requested the contractor to have an agreement with the
land lord and pay a tenant cost which is not part of the contractor scope.
▪ Owner caused delay in providing the contractor by the ministry of agriculture permit which were provided on March
30, 2010, 207 days delay and for area less than mentioned in the contract.
▪ Owner assumed in correspondence No. 10054-9-T19-GCP-00191 dated June 03, 2010 that materials that are received
are stored offshore till time of installation to be installed in one or two days, contractor price and schedule is not
based on this assumption that was not mentioned in the contract.
▪ Referring to correspondence No. 10054-9-T19-GCP-00191 dated June 03, 2010, the time period between the delivery
finish date of the pipes and the execution start date is 107 days which is completely on contrary with the owner
instructions in the referred correspondence and the owner delay in providing facilities in according to the contract.
▪ Referring to correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00286 and coordination meeting dated September 28, 2010
regarding PGESCo verbal instructions to work on discharge area due to restricted time schedule, also the helicopter
path obstructed the work activities in the discharge area including the discharge pipes and accordingly distributed
manufacturing and delivery schedule for the pipes.
120. Notificationscations
▪ Referring to letter 10054-9-L19-GCP-00403, delivery of discharge pipes diameter 3500 mm has been stopped from
date November 12, 2010 (32 days).
▪ Referring to letter 10054-9-L19-GCP-00403, delivery of discharge pipes diameter 3500 mm has been stopped from
date November 12, 2010(32 days).
▪ Referring to letter 10054-9-L19-GCP-00442, Delay occurred due to truck driver’s strike which stopped the supply of
pipes to the site since December 9, 2010, such delay affected the contractor performance in the project both
related to time schedule and cost.
▪ Contractor had done mitigations to absorb the delay in the delivery of RCCP to site.
▪ Owner caused delay in correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GCP-00138 in removal of gas line which was
removed on March 23, 2010 instead of September 06, 2009.
▪ Referring to correspondence No. 10054-9-L19-GAM-0038, CP-102 will cause delay in closure of channel (1- 4) as he
will use PGESCo instructions to protect buildings on shallow foundations that will be constructed before approving
the dewatering system.