Unmapped 11 kV Cable Delays Piling

There are at least two candidate compensation events. First, the PM instructed the Contractor to stop piling. A PM instruction to stop or not start work is a compensation event, subject to the contract's notification and assessment rules. Second, if the PM was obliged to provide access to the inlet works area by 15 March and the area could not be used for the intended piling because of the cable, the PM may have failed to provide access. The PM's 'Contractor risk' position is weak on the facts. The PM provided Site Information showing the cable route clear of the inlet works, and the Contractor carried out GPR. The Contractor is responsible for its own method and for interpreting the Site Information, but it is not responsible for a PM instruction to stop work, nor generally for an unmapped utility that the PM's information did not show. The PM could argue that the Contractor should have trial-holed every pile position, but that is a method argument, not a complete answer to the instruction to stop. The PM should assess the instruction and the access failure separately, and should not reject the event merely by labelling it 'Contractor risk'.

Under Option C, the PM assesses the compensation event using Defined Cost plus fee. Idle piling rig costs may be recoverable if the rig is in the Working Areas, is not booked to other work, and the standby rate is consistent with the schedule of cost components and the Contractor's records. The PM should not accept £2,800 per day automatically: it should check whether the rate includes operator, fuel, insurance and depreciation, whether the rig could have been redeployed, and whether the Contractor kept daily standby records signed by the Supervisor. Remobilisation of £18,000 should be assessed on actual Defined Cost, not on a market-rate estimate, and should exclude any cost that would have been incurred anyway. For delay, the PM must use the Accepted Programme and the updated programme. The six-week diversion may not translate into six weeks' delay to Completion if the piling was not on the critical path or if other work could proceed. The PM should also consider the target-cost mechanism: the compensation event changes the target and the Prices, and the PM's assessment must be implemented, not left as an open dispute. The PM should compare the quoted time and cost with the programme and the cost records, and should reduce the quotation where the Contractor failed to mitigate.

The Contractor should have treated the early warning as a live risk, not just a notification. It should have checked whether the piling rig could be moved to other pile positions outside the cable zone, whether a smaller rig or alternative foundation method could be used, and whether the utility diversion could be accelerated by agreeing a programme with the utility owner. It should have recorded the idle rig daily, kept the PM informed, and proposed a revised programme showing the effect on planned Completion. Under NEC, the PM assesses a compensation event on the basis of the Contractor's reasonable mitigation, not on the basis of the least efficient response. If the Contractor simply stood still for six weeks without exploring redeployment, the PM may assess the event as if the rig had been moved and the delay reduced. Mitigation does not eliminate the compensation event, but it affects both time and money. The Contractor should also have checked whether the cable was shown on any other PM information, because an inconsistency in the Site Information may itself require notification and clarification before work proceeds.