On an Option A contract, in presenting the Cl. 31 programmes, the contractor has not defined any allowance for float or time-risk; rather he has included a terminal risk allowance. With particular reference to the critical path, we consider that not only does this preclude the ability to monitor risk / residual risk as the works progress but it also prevents assessment in terms the sufficiency of the operational resource and time allowances and the deliverability of the programme generally. It is worth noting that the critical path constitutes complex bridge construction works over an environmentally sensitive water course.
Could you advise on the resolution of the issue, vis-à-vis the contractor’s position that there is no float within the critical path, and an assessment that a programme with no float on the critical path is impractical / unrealistic and, therefore, cannot be accepted? A risk reduction meeting cannot fully resolve the matter (the contractor has already stated that, due to the their commercial approach on the job, there is no float / risk provision in the C.P. operations) and there only appears to remain a completely unsatisfactory situation whereby these mutually exclusive positions lead to an impasse undermining the programme as a management tool.
With reference to the recent changes in national insurance, the contractor has submitted a CE under Option X2. I would appreciate a commentary on admissibility in the light of the facts that the relevant statutes have been on the books from 2008 and 2010 and, hence, were known of at the time of tender. Furthermore, the details of the budget provided not only for an increase in overall rate and but also threshold – effectively providing a reduction for employees earnings under approximately £20,000 p.a..