You are on page 1of 7

Probably another elementary doubt: Determination of Reasonable Time when Time is at Large

Even if the Time is at Large (due to poor contract drafting or unforeseen actions by a party or some other chances), the Reasonable Time to complete the Project (or remaining activities) can be calculated fairly easy and accurate at any point in time with the help of Contractors Programme finalized as per Sub -clause 8.3. Or does Time being at Large gives some flexibility to the Contractor to re-arrange the established Programme of Works? Your opinion / comments are most welcome.
27 days ago

Like Comment Follow Flag More

18 comments

Follow Abubakr

Abubakr Adam At that point the Contractor's Programme is not a valid contractual document. It is often the case that the Contractor's Programme is "compressed to some extent" from the outset. Either as a response or compromise to an Employer's requests for an earlier completion date during pre-contract negotiations or by the Contractor himself in an attempt to gain additional points in the tender analysis. Activity durations can be extended simply by using different methods for executing the Works.
26 days ago Like

Follow Ritu

Ritu Das, PMP, CCE Once Contractor's Programme of works is accepted as complying with the Contract by the Employer, it cannot be modified in the circumstances of time being at large. Generally the Parties renegotiate on the balance Time in such circumstances. Legally, contra preferentem rule should apply for poor drafting.
26 days ago Like

Follow Hashim

Hashim Muhammud Bashir Hi Ritu, "it cannot be modified in the circumstances of time being at large" - Are you stating that, it can be used to calculate the time for remaining activities?
26 days ago Like

Follow Ritu

Ritu Das, PMP, CCE Hi Hashim, yes, I consider that once the Programme is accepted it forms a base line for measuring any delays and their affects.
26 days ago Like

Follow Tony

Tony Lewis Ritu, correct, the accepted programme forms the basis for measure of delays (and costs on either side) up to the point when time becomes "at large".. LD cannot be applied in any event as no EOT is given to extend the contract period. In the event of "time at large" negotiation is required to format a new programme, which shall be "reasonable". This does not mean simply to add on the remainder of incomplete existing on top of the actual programme status to date. "At large" can occur due to many events (which should have warranted issue of EOT). The new programme for completion should reflect any circumstances giving rise to delay, and any extra cost involved in the new programme has to be negotiated between client and contractor. As time is at large, EOT cannot be awarded and the parties require to establish new baseline programme. In effect the contractor could raise 2 claims...1 for initial delay, and another for the new contract duration. The client cannot raise LD for initial delay, and can only negotiate the new period for completion and also negotiate LD amount for failure to complete in the new duration.
26 days ago Like

Follow Clarence Elmer

Clarence Elmer Quismundo To state my 2 cents worth, I recall it being one of the guidelines of contract administration and interpretation that the Contractor cannot simply use an event as a convenient means or reason to effect corrections to some mistakes that he made in the original and contractually bound submissions/documents. Such applies not only to work programmes but also to Contract BOQ's. So unless the Employer specifically asks him to do so, or subsequently agreed/negotiated mutually, then the originally submitted and acepted documents remain "as is". Best regards.
26 days ago Like

Follow Joe

Joe Bloggs In the context of FIDIC, where is it stated that the Contractor's programme has to be "finalized"? The Engineer is not required to approve or accept the Contractor's programme. He is only obligated to point out whether or not it complies with the Contract. If the Engineer fails to do so within 21 days the Contractor is free to proceed in accordance with his programme. The Contractor's programme is never a contract document. The only contractual obligations the Contractor has are to complete the Works by the Time(s) for Completion. The Contractor's programme doesn't change that. The Contractor's programme is often referred to as the Baseline Programme, but that is planner speak. It is not a contractual requirement, although it common sense that the first Contractor's programme submission forms the benchmark for monitoring progress for all parties concerned. However, it is a constantly evolving document as progress and impacting events change the way the Contractor is able to construct the Works. The Contractor's programme is not compressed. Maybe the Time(s) for Completion are reduced, but the Contractor's programme has to comply with the Contract.
25 days ago Like

Follow Hashim

Hashim Muhammud Bashir I agree that the term 'finalized' doesn't have any Contractual value. To rephrase the original question.

Let's say 'Time is at Large' in a FIDIC 1999 Contract and the Contractor had previously submitted a Programme as per S.Cl 8.3 Can't that Programme (or the originally planned duration & logic of the remaining activities along with any impact on them) be used to calculate the Reasonable Time? (thus reducing any further disputes) I read that (in old days) when Contracts were executed without specifying the dates for completion or duration, the Courts sometimes looked at Project correspondence indicating possible duration/completion date, to come to a conclusion on 'What is reasonable time to complete the Project'. I was thinking in similar way.
25 days ago Like

Follow Ritu

Ritu Das, PMP, CCE I agree that the programme does not form a part of the contract under FIDIC. Incase Engineer does not point out on any non-compliance within 21days, it is considered as accepted benchmark. For analysing delays and time extensions this benchmark is referred to. But once the Time is at large, the logic for remaining activities may be reworked/changed depending on parties agreement. I agree with Hashim that the originallly planned duration for the activities still remains useful as reference.
25 days ago Like

Follow Mohamed

Mohamed Thabet That's a very academic question, if time was at large due to 'poor drafting' the submitted programme may constitute the reasonable time to complete, however with lads paralysed it will cost more money to proof the damage than the damages that might be awarded
25 days ago Like

Follow Hashim

Hashim Muhammud Bashir Academic it may be Mohamed :) However, I have seen several letters from different Contractors claiming 'Time is at Large'. That too when they are also submitting an updated Programme (almost on a weekly basis) showing the current forecast on Project

Completion! I was trying to see a good valid reason for such an action.
25 days ago Like

Follow Ritu

Ritu Das, PMP, CCE Simply speaking Time is at large when there is no valid completion date. From Contractor's point of view, unless all their time extension claims are replied/decided by way of decision, time is at large. Contractor is obliged to submit the updated programmes, but it does not change the facts. Employers tend to hold the decision to reject/accept these decisions and time remains at large until the decision is made.
24 days ago Like

Follow Sam

Sam Daniel 'Time is at large' when there is no valid contract completion date but the scheduled contract completion date is elapsed. Before this date (scheduled contract completion date) is passed, no Contract can be treated as Time is at large. Apparently no Contractor can conclude Time is at large during the tenure of the Contract. Note that 'Time is at large' principle is supported by case law of Common Law, not by all Civil Laws.
24 days ago Like

Follow Giri

Giri Pillai I think, Schedule offered by Contractor and accepted by Engineer will form another Contract or part of Contract since it is missing. It will establish a completion date irrespective of missing date in Contract. Later, normally 'Time at Large' will be caused by Employer's default only. In that case, duration and logic of remaining activities of original schedule will be a good measure to establish reasonable time, unless Contractor can prove otherwise.
24 days ago Like

Follow Mohamed

Mohamed Thabet @Hashim, You have specified three possible scenarios for invoking time at large, '1 )due to poor contract drafting or 2) unforeseen actions by a party or 3) some other chances.' As for 2 & 3, Time at large argument is self-defeated when you using a standard form which include an extension of time mechanism such as FIDIC, I assume you did not strike out the extension of time clauses. For 1, I do not know how it is possible that a completion date specified in the contract will be poorly drafted, however, the submitted programme constitute the reasonable time from a contractor's perspective to complete the works. Trusting the above clarifies the matter.
20 days ago Like

Follow Hashim

Hashim Muhammud Bashir Hi All, My intention while starting this discussion was NOT to define Time at Large or the possibilities leading to Time being at Large. I also understand that strictly speaking, its a Common Law term and may not be considered as it is in Civil Law jurisdictions. However, even with all the available Clauses in FIDIC to extend the Time (or to reset it later on), I think there are chances of Time being at Large. (Academic it may be) My doubt was, if it is a Common Law country and Time is really at large, then the 8.3 Programme should at least eliminate further debate or disputes on what is Reasonable Time to complete. And you all have helped to clear my doubt. Thank you very much. :)
20 days ago Like

Follow Andrew

Andrew Flowerdew Hashim, Although the programme may give some indication as to what may be a reasonable time it is not definitive and only a starting point. A reasonable time has to take into account ALL circumstances that actually occurred and all circumstances, unless you have a very good crystal ball, will not be known until the project is complete. Only then can a final assessment of a reasonable time be made because only then can everything that has happened be taken into account.
17 days ago Like

Follow Hashim

Hashim Muhammud Bashir Andrew, Thank you for the comment. I think now I got where I went wrong. :)
17 days ago Like

Reply privately Flag as inappropriate

You might also like