Читать книгу Practical Risk Management for EPC / Design-Build Projects - Walter A. Salmon - Страница 37

Insisting on adherence to a Project Schedule (and updating it regularly to show actual progress) has nothing at all to do with being able to blame people if certain activities are delayed. It has everything to do with ensuring that the Contractor will have the necessary backup information and data available to be able to claim an appropriate extension of time if delays occur because of the Employer's action or inaction. The importance of keeping to the Project Schedule and avoiding loss of time cannot be stressed enough. This is a particularly valid observation if the Contract includes a provision for the Employer to terminate the Contract in the event that the Project is already so late against the Project Schedule that it appears that the Liquidated Damages will be fully consumed. Time cannot and never will be the Contractor's friend (and, as indicated earlier, very often time is the Contractor's worst enemy). If, therefore, the Contractor fails to develop a worthwhile Project Schedule or fails to take all steps necessary to adhere faithfully to such Schedule, then time will be given a great opportunity to destroy all the Contractor's other efforts to complete the Project successfully. Of course, saving time can be a double-edged sword, and every care must be taken to ensure that catch-up plans and acceleration arrangements do not jeopardise worker safety or health.

Still on the importance of not losing time, there is a classic error made by many Contractors in the situation where the Employer has indicated that a major change is being considered. That is to slow down, halt or re-sequence the contractual work scope, without first having received authority or formal advice from the Employer to do so. The best way for the Contractor to proceed in all such cases is to ignore the potential change and carry on as usual until such time as the Employer issues a formally signed instruction to do otherwise. I have lost count of the number of situations I have personal knowledge of where Contractors had, in all good faith, ignored the advice to continue without letting up. Instead, they delayed the work progress, only to later find that they had been held entirely responsible for the resultant delay to the contractually required completion date. All is fair in love and war, and there is rarely (if ever) a lot of love existing between the Employer and the Contractor when it comes to delayed Project completion. It should therefore come as no surprise that even the most reputable of Employers may resort to unfairly using the threat of Liquidated Damages against the Contractor in order to extract greater benefit (or action) from the Contractor than is otherwise merited.