Claims - Essay Example

Delay Claims To address the application for claims, supposedly for overtime, premium shift, loss of efficiency in expediting, and in subcontractor expediting costs, the following detailed explanation would rationalize, if the noted claims are justified: Delays from September 10 to October 18, 19X0: From the review of the incidents, the contractors’ claim for a 30-delay was not appropriately justified for the following reasons: (1) the noted specifications supposedly for the jet engine were deemed to be added after the final procurement has already been done; and (2) the original specifications were still recommended to be used (without any changes) to effectively meet the schedule.

Therefore, the delay was actually caused by the contractor and in no way should the claim be applied as valid. Strike on October 12 to 26, 19X0: The strike is considered excusable and non-compensable (Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC ). As the contracting officer, one could have made a formal request to the aircraft manufacturers who would be recipients of the aircraft jet engines to extend the deadline as needed for the duration of the strike, which is about 2 weeks. November 3, 19X0 to December 21, 19X0: As for the major change in the stipulated rotors section engine, it should be noted that this type of change is classified as construction change (Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC ), where change is evidently needed to ensure the safety of identified aircraft and prevent injuries.

However, there could be compensable delays in terms of one’s technical people’s inability to immediately facilitate the change, as noted in 10 days after it was submitted by the contractor; meaning, from Nov. 3, it took the contractor 10 days to redesign the rotor section, which was about Nov. 13. Only on Dec. 7 were the changes duly issued. Therefore, the compensable delay was 24 days. January 5 to February 7, 19X1: The contractor’s claim for the delay of 33 days was a non-compensable excusable delay since the reason for the delay was conformity to the original conditions in the procurement contract that supposedly required awarding the job to the lowest bidder.

As such, the delay was beyond one’s control and therefore, the contractor was effectively entitled to a time extension beyond the original stipulated deadline. Analysis As the contracting officer, one should have noted which were non-compensable excusable delays and should have requested the time extension to the government offices expecting these aircraft jet engines. It was apparent, so far that two non-compensable excusable delays should have been awarded an extension of a total of 47 days to the contract for the two-week strike and the change in supplier for the subcontracted fuel pump for 33 days.

As such, these could have been used to schedule completion of the rest of the work without necessarily working overtime. However, since the contracted noted as early as December 1, 19X0 that there were apparently delays in meeting the schedule, he started contracting overtime work, which is the extension was appropriately applied and granted, would not be justified. Only on January 25,19X0 was an agreement forged to expedite work to meet the April 15,19X0 deadline. In this regard, it was apparent that the contractor was justified to be paid overtime work and expediting costs from January 25 onwards, since a renegotiation of the contract based on excusable, non- compensable delays could have granted justifiable extensions without the needed overtime work.

Work Cited Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC . "Excusable and Non-Excusable Delays." n.d. cohenseglias.com. 17 September 2012 .