Assertion: prolongation | /r/CreatedBy | variation
Facets:
Source sentences:
text: The second is that prolongation for late possession, suspension and matters referred to in GCC Clause 63, except variations, should be assessed as Cost, but that prolongation caused by variations should first be assessed using the rates in the BQ and if the Contractor can show that he has incurred more money than is reimbursed by such an assessment, then he would be entitled to top up this assessment to reflect his actual costs.
text: Mr. Molloy briefly touched on the position under the KCRC form of contract, Clause 56.3, which he stated clarifies the position that prolongation caused by variations shall be assessed as Cost.
text: However, interestingly, he did not apply this to the valuation of prolongation caused by variations which he believes should be valued and not paid as loss and expense or damages.
text: The question of the impact on the notice provisions was raised if prolongation caused by variations is priced under the variation provisions.
text: Mr. Charlton stated that he had never seen prolongation caused by variations priced under Clause 61 of the Government Form of Contract.
text: Mr. Battersby said that in his experience on projects it was quite common to value prolongation caused by variations, and that in arbitration he had seen awards where delay due to variations were valued with a top up under Clause 63 of the Government Conditions.