Exceptional Rainfall on a Coastal Defence Scheme

The rainfall is likely to be a compensation event if it is more adverse than the weather data and it delays the work. The contract weather data is the benchmark, not the PM's general experience of winter rain. The data gives an October mean of 85 mm and a 90th-percentile of 120 mm; 190 mm in 48 hours is well beyond that benchmark. The PM should compare the event with the specific weather data in the contract, including the relevant period and measurement location. The PM's statement that 'winter rain is normal' is irrelevant if the contract threshold is exceeded. However, the weather event must still cause delay to Completion or planned Completion. The PM should not accept the whole 12 days: the records show 7 days of access blockage and 3 days of platform reinstatement, while 2 days were planned crane maintenance that would have happened anyway. The compensable delay is therefore at most 10 days, subject to the programme analysis. The Contractor's early warning does not prove the event, but it supports the timing and shows that the risk was notified before the flood.

The PM should use the Accepted Programme, not the Contractor's after-the-event narrative. The programme shows 5 days of float on the critical sea-wall pour. If the weather delay affects that critical path, the first 5 days may be absorbed by float and the Completion Date may move by only 5 days if the delay is 10 days. The PM should distinguish between delay to planned Completion and delay to the Completion Date: the compensation event assessment may recognise the effect on planned Completion and time-related cost, while the extension to the Completion Date is limited by the float. The PM should also check whether the float was genuine and available, or whether it had already been consumed by other events. The 2 days of planned crane maintenance must be excluded because they were not caused by the weather. If the access road was blocked for 7 days and the platform took 3 days to reinstate, the PM should test whether those activities were on the critical path and whether they overlapped. The PM should not simply grant 12 days because the site was flooded; it should grant the delay that the Accepted Programme shows.

The early warning is a risk-management step, not a compensation event notification. It shows that the Contractor identified the storm risk and gave the PM the opportunity to collaborate, but it does not preserve the claim by itself. The compensation event notification was given 14 days after the flood, which is within the eight-week notification period. The PM should respond to the notification within the contractual period, either accepting it, denying it or requesting further information. The PM should not use the early warning as a substitute for the notification, nor should it reject the notification because the early warning was given earlier. The PM should check that the notification identifies the event and its effect, and that the quotation is submitted within the required period. If the PM fails to respond in time, the deemed position under the contract may apply. The PM should also record that the early warning was given before the storm, because that supports the Contractor's mitigation and helps distinguish the weather event from any failure to prepare.