When preparing the Master Programme (cl the Contractor carried out some risk analysis that
resulted in the addition of some float in several activities in the programme. These floats were
identified on the programme submitted to the Architect. One of these activities was the wooden floor
in the refectory. Before this activity was about to start the Contractor asked the Architect to confirm
the way the wooden flooring should be laid? (i.e. should the grain be laid across the floor or along
the floor? The Architect approached the supplier/manufacturer of the wooden board flooring,
however their technical advisor was away on holiday for two week and no answer could be given until
she returned. By the time the Architect had a response and issued an instruction, the activity had
been delayed and the contractor estimated would not be completed until one 1 day after the date
shown on the programme, thus threatening the ‘completion date’ by one day. The contractor wrote
claiming that the ‘completion date’ may be delayed up to two weeks, citing ‘relevant event’ cl 2.29.7.
The Architect responded within 5 days fixing the completion date one day later. He explained in a
covering letter that the float – identified by the contractor in his programme – was owned by the
project and not the contractor.
Advise on the contractual position?