Civil Engineering nOVEMBER 2021 | Vol 29 No 10

Civil Engineering November 2021 19 or a sophisticated computer software product. Usually, reference is made to the critical path (CP). If this changes, the (sub) contractor may be entitled to an extension of time (EoT). Be aware that “the longest path is always the CP, but the CP is not always the longest path through a project network” (Mark Watson, Construction Adjudication Association of South Africa webinar, 03/09/2021). Selected tasks comprising the works programme can be manipulated at will to adapt the CP to suit a claim by a skilled scheduler of construc- tion activities. To find those tasks where durations and/or the relationship to other tasks have been ‘adapted’ can take many hours. For example, a fake CP may be cre- ated with longer durations or unnecessary interdependencies of activities than the real CP to hide contractor inefficiencies in order to avoid penalty charges. Irrespective of any manipulation, the planned start and completion dates of major tasks can be extracted from the contractor’s programme and compared to actual dates. The sum of these activities must correspond to contractual perfor- mance dates. SfCs generally require the contractor to provide an anticipated cashflow for the duration of the project, based on the accepted contract works programme referred to above. Discrepancies may be identified by comparing the intended expenditure and the actual amounts certi- fied for payment. Another useful tool is to compare the certified amount of money with the amount of money required to complete the project. If this total exceeds the current contract value, the reason for such discrepancy must be identified ur- gently before further cash haemorrhaging is incurred. The objective of these two techniques is to obtain a ‘quick snapshot’ of possible performance inconsistencies to imple- ment remedial action, if required. Time and money claims, due to the issue of contract instructions, will account for some deviations – the rest many need explanation by the contractor. Major rea- sons for (sub)contractors’ claims include: 1. Delay in site handover to the (sub)contractor Typically, if the (sub)contractor does not have possession of the site, he/she cannot work. The AoC must determine if the delay is likely to be of a fixed duration, enabling the (sub)contractor to carry out preparatory and administrative work provided that such work may save time when possession of the site has been given. The (sub)contractor may be entitled to some (if not the whole) time claimed until the date of site handover and possibly a portion of preliminaries, depending on the method chosen for payment and/or adjustment at the time of tender – please see below. Neighbouring owners or residents may disrupt the works from day one – possibly the most difficult scenario to manage to avoid hostile confrontations, requiring strict adherence to legal procedures to qualify for compensation from South African Special Risk Insurance Association (SASRIA) SOC insurance. The formulation and assessment of such claims by the AoC should follow as soon as the time and cost implications can be reliably quantified. 2. Execution of the works – ‘surprises’ The scenario is different if, in spite of a geotechnical and other investigations, hard rock, groundwater, clay, sinkholes or historic artefacts are discovered and require removal, replacement or, at worst, further investigation that may jeopardise the project. Should human bones be found, the site will have to be closed, and the find re- ported to the police and the South African Heritage Resource Agency to determine if this is a murder or an ancient burial site. In the latter scenario, the project may have to be indefinitely delayed or even be aborted. The whole project team must be kept informed as some may have to pro- tect and/or secure the works in response to a contract instruction. The AoC/CA, in consultation with the employer, will have to devise a short- term project management or project exit strategy that may include limited pay- ments for site security. Climatic extremes may entitle the (sub)contractor to time and/or money. For example, temperatures below freezing or above 40°C will require protection of the works and special work procedures. Similarly, torrential rain and/or flooding of the works may require pumping, re- excavating foundations, etc., which may extend beyond the actual event. Some SfCs require the contractor at the time of tender to budget for time to be lost in the construction programme based on (10 year) historic Weather Bureau statistics. Recent international climatic events have shown that such statistics are unlikely to be relevant. The AoC must assess each event to determine if the (sub)contractor can safely carry out scheduled tasks outside and, if not, ensure that additional time be granted and/or additional payments be approved for unplanned activities such as dewatering of the site. 3. Construction information – availability, competence The days when a project is fully docu- mented at the time of tender are history – and then applicable almost exclusively to public works projects. The late provi- sion of construction information is a common complaint from (sub)contrac- tors, but not always necessarily a valid statement. The final master key schedule is not required during the first semester of a project. The more comprehensive the design information provided, the better the planning of the construction activities. The (sub)contractor is deemed to be an expert in the field of building and should be able to accurately interpret the intent of the project from the tender information provided. The reasons for incomplete informa- tion may be the late appointment of specialist consultants due to an incom- plete project definition by the employer, or where the employer is unhappy to pay another consulting fee. There is nothing wrong with including provisional sums or prime cost amounts in the tender, but they must be converted into real appoint- ments or specifications in tandem with the construction programme. A consultant could provide poor service such as the late issue of informa- tion and/or issue information containing errors, which, at worst, may only be discovered during construction, or after occupation. Similarly, specified products or materials may be unsuitable for the intended application, may not be available, or may not be available in time (possibly due to Covid-19). To digress, the Hackitt commission of inquiry dealing with the causes of the Grenfell fire in London in 2017 proposed the ‘golden thread principle’, “so that the