Proposal Writing Consultants, LLC’s Post

Hey federal construction contractors, has your company received a deficiency notice, unacceptable rating, or rejection regarding your design-build approach for a technical proposal? PWC Offers: 14-page design-build approach narrative Approved on: Design-build stand-alone projects, and design-build seed projects for MACC, MATOC, and IDIQ contracts. Approved by: USACE, NAVFAC, State Agencies, Army, Air Force, VA, & GSA  Plan Rating: Excellent, Outstanding, and have not received a deficiency on the approach. Formatting: 12-Point Font, Times New Roman, all Justified, PWC will format to match your company colors and company name. PWC offers 100-plus technical proposal narratives and can help with writing specific design-build approach narratives for your federal construction projects. Please message us today for more information and pricing. #RFP #RFQ #IFB #Smallbusiness #8a #SDVOSB #VOSB #Hubzone #WOSB #federalcontractor #federalcontracting #federalconstruction #technicalwriting #proposalwriting #proposalmanagement #constructionmanagement #businessdevelopment #sales #constructionnarratives #constructionproposals #constructionproposal #bids #proposalmanager #technicalnarrative #construction #contractor #contractors #writer #writing #proposalnarrative #proposalnarratives

To prepare a claim for an extension of time, follow these steps: 1. Review the contract: Identify the relevant clauses related to extensions of time, delays, and notice requirements. 2. Document the delay: Keep a record of the events causing the delay, including dates, times, and details of what happened. 3. Calculate the delay: Determine the number of days delayed and how it impacts the project schedule. 4. Identify the cause: Determine if the delay is due to the client, contractor, or unforeseen circumstances. 5. Prepare the claim: Write a clear and concise claim stating the reason for the extension, the amount of time requested, and supporting documentation. 6. Include supporting documents: Attach evidence such as: - Project schedules - Delay notices - Correspondence with the client or contractor - Witness statements 7. Submit the claim: Send the claim to the appropriate party, as specified in the contract. 8. Negotiate: Be prepared to negotiate and provide additional information as needed. Remember to stay organized, objective, and professional throughout the process.

Here are a few tips to make your terms and contracts more clear and minimize the chances of subcontractors coming back with claims: 1. Clearly define scope of work: Make sure that the scope of work for each subcontractor is clearly outlined in their contract. Specify what tasks they are responsible for, what materials or equipment they need to provide, and any specific deadlines or milestones. 2. Include detailed specifications: Provide precise details about the quality standards, measurements, materials, and any other specific requirements for each aspect of the project. This will leave little room for misinterpretation. 3. Communicate expectations upfront: Have thorough discussions with subcontractors before signing contracts to ensure that both parties have a clear understanding of project goals, timelines, deliverables, payment terms, and any other important aspects. 4. Use plain language: Avoid using overly complex legal jargon in your contracts. Instead, use simple language that is easy to understand by all parties involved. 5. Review contracts with legal counsel: Consider having an attorney review your contracts to ensure they are legally sound and cover all necessary aspects while protecting your interests. 6. Regularly update documents if needed: As projects evolve or circumstances change during construction processes (e.g., change orders), make sure you update relevant documents accordingly so everyone is on the same page. Remember that effective communication throughout the entire process is crucial in preventing misunderstandings.

Have you ever had a first NEC programme rejected on the basis that it shows Completion being achieved on time? This is an area where I think JCT (SBC2016) does things the best. The Contractor is simply required to submit a master programme, and revise it after each time the Architect assesses entitlement to extension of time. In FIDIC (99 Red Book), the Contractor is required to submit a programme together with a report showing resource levels for each major stage. The Engineer can notify the Contractor that the programme does not comply with the Contract, in which case the Contractor tries again, but otherwise it has to progress in accordance with the programme. The Contractor has to resubmit a programme if progress does not match the programme, or if the Engineer instructs it to considering it does not comply with the Contract. I think I'm right in saying that the programme is required to show the Contractor finishing on time? In NEC4 ECC, the Contractor is required to submit a programme with a statement of resources "for each operation". It has to submit a revised programme at the intervals stated in the Contract Data and when the PM instructs it to. Reasons for the PM not accepting the programme are that it does not realistically reflect the Contractor's plans or that those plans are not practicable. A reason for not accepting does NOT however include that the programme shows the Contractor completing after the Completion Date. I wonder, has the PM ever not accepted a first programme, on the basis that it shows Planned* Completion by the Completion Date and the PM does not believe that this is achievable? If so, what would be the consequences? Incidentally, for this reason, one of my recommendations to NEC in my report earlier this year was to introduce a statement reminding both parties (or to tenderers) to check the period between proposed first access date and proposed Completion Date, and verify that it is realistically achievable. *Planned Completion, not Completion as I originally wrote. Thank you for pointing this out Paul Aldridge.

Strict Time Limits in the 1999 Red Book Clause 20.1 of the 1999 Red Book plays a central role in contractor claims. It addresses both extensions of time and loss and expense claims but imposes a strict notice requirement. The contractor must notify the engineer within 28 days of becoming aware of the event that forms the basis of the claim. This "time-bar" clause poses a significant risk for contractors. Failure to meet this deadline can release the employer from any responsibility regarding the claim [Reference: Hillig et al., FIDIC's Red Book 1999 edition: a study review (2016)]. This time-sensitive approach differs from contracts like JCT SBC 2005, which do not include such strict time-bar clauses.

Clause 14.10 Statement at Completion In the labyrinth of FIDIC Yellow Book 1999, Clause 14.10, the "Statement at Completion," serves as a pivotal milestone for contractors. This clause mandates that within a timeframe of 84 days post the acquisition of the Taking-Over Certificate for the Works, the Contractor is obligated to furnish the Engineer with six copies of a comprehensive Statement at #Clause1410 #ConstructionContracts #ConstructionLaw #ContractManagement #DisputePrevention #FIDICContracts #FIDICYellowBook1999 #ProjectCompletion #ProjectControl #ProjectFinancialManagement #StatementatCompletion

The 2019 FIDIC Golden Principles-GPs represent a cornerstone in the realm of international construction and engineering contracts, introduced to safeguard the integrity of FIDIC's General Conditions of Contracts- GCs. These principles are designed to ensure that contracts under the FIDIC umbrella maintain their globally recognized standards of fairness, transparency and efficiency. The GPs serve as a beacon, guiding the drafting of Particular Conditions - PCs and ensuring that modifications do not deviate from the core values that FIDIC contracts are known for. The Golden Principles are formulated at a conceptual level, capturing the essence of what a FIDIC Contract should embody. They are concise, ensuring that each principle is easily understood and widely accepted within the construction and engineering sectors. The GPs are intentionally limited in number to cover only the most fundamental aspects necessary for the completeness and integrity of FIDIC contracts. The Five Golden Principles: GP1: Roles and Responsibilities GP2: Clarity and Ambiguity GP3: Balance of Risk/Reward Allocation GP4: Reasonable Time Periods GP5: Dispute Avoidance/ Adjudication Purpose of the GPs are to protect the FIDIC brand and its global recognition for fairness and balance in construction and engineering contracts, provide clear guidance on drafting PCs and other contract documents to prevent deviations from the core principles of FIDIC contracts and to encourage the proper administration of contracts, ensuring that all parties fulfill their obligations and can exercise their rights effectively throughout the execution of the works. The necessity of the FIDIC Golden Principles in standardizing contract practices cannot be overstated. They play a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity, consistency and global applicability of FIDIC contracts. By adressing the challenges of contract modifications, ensuring fair risk allocation and facilitating efficient dispute resolution, the GPs enhance the management and success of construction and engineering project worldwide. Their implementation ensures that FIDIC contracts remain the gold standard for international construction and engineering projects, fostering an environment of fairness, transparency and efficiency that benefits all stakeholders. #FIDIC, #FIDICGOLDENPRINCIPLES

PT 2 NEC there was a need to be more vigilant in identifying disallowed costs and the certified outturn costs kept to the minimum. Nevertheless, the disallowed costs sum shot up in the preceding the meeting and expected to skyrocket further. It was the contractors' perception that Bechtel, in performing its project management duties, was in favour of the employer's interests and not that of their own. The contractors' view was that the project manager was obliged to act in a fair and impartial manner when issuing a payment certificate was concerned. The contractors' consortium applied to the court for an injunction to prevent the project manager from employer's interference and interests and failing to act impartially. In support of its case, the contractors used the well renowned case Sutcliffe v Thackrah (1974). In this case, the judge held that an architect, when issuing a certificate, is under an implied duty to act fairly and impartially between the contractor and employer. Bechtel contended that the obligations of the project manager under the NEC(3) differ from the duties of an under JCT contract, there is no implied duty for the project manager to act impartially. The contract provided a dispute resolution mechanism which could be used to voice their grievances or dispute with project manager decision making. The judge agreed with the contractors' consortium and held that the principles laid down in Sutcliffe v Thackrah (1974) applied equally to the project manager under an NEC (3) contract. An architect under a JCT contract is obliged to act in a fair and an impartial manner relating issuing payment certificates and making decisions on extension of time. This can be compared with the architect 's responsibility to act as the employer's agent. It was established in Costain v Bechtel (2005) as a project manager, regardless of whether an NEC contract or JCT contract, must act impartially and independently, in the same manner as Architect.

*Distinction between the terminology “compensable” delay as opposed to “excusable” delay and “disruption* *Compensable delay* A compensable delay is a delay in the completion of a project that is caused by a factor outside of the contractor's control, and for which the contractor is entitled to compensation from the employer. Compensable delays can arise from a variety of factors, including: 1. Employer risk events, such as late provision of drawings, specifications, or consents. 2. Force majeure events, such as natural disasters, acts of war, or government regulations. 3. Unforeseen site conditions. 4. Delays caused by other contractors or subcontractors. *Excusable delay* An excusable delay is a delay in the completion of a project that is caused by a factor outside of the contractor's control, but for which the contractor is not entitled to compensation from the employer. Excusable delays can arise from the same factors as compensable delays, but the contractor may not be entitled to compensation if it failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the delay. *Disruption* Disruption is a change to the planned execution of a project that causes delays, increases costs, or reduces productivity. Disruption can be caused by a variety of factors, including: 1. Concurrent delays from multiple sources 2. Changes to the project scope or design 3. Poor coordination between different contractors or subcontractors 4. Unforeseen site conditions 5. Inefficient project management Distinction between compensable delay, excusable delay, and disruption The key distinction between compensable delay, excusable delay, and disruption is that compensable delays entitle the contractor to compensation from the employer, while excusable delays and disruption do not. Another key distinction is that disruption is a broader concept than delay. Disruption can include delays, but it can also include other negative impacts on the project, such as increased costs and reduced productivity.

An Extension of Time (EOT) is a vital tool for contractors, offering additional time to complete projects without incurring penalties. It helps manage unforeseen delays, reduce stress, and ensure high-quality work. EOT clauses also play a crucial role in avoiding disputes and fostering positive client relationships. Common reasons for EOT requests in construction include client-caused delays, force majeure events, site conditions, third-party delays, and regulatory issues. These factors prevent contractors from being unfairly penalized for delays beyond their control. Documentation for EOT is essential as it provides evidence of delays, ensures contract compliance, helps avoid penalties, and facilitates fair cost adjustments. Proper documentation promotes transparency, aids in dispute resolution, and enhances communication between contractors and clients. Contractors seeking an EOT should follow key steps: 1. Identify the Delay: Document the cause and impact. 2. Notify the Client: Promptly inform the client about the delay and intent to request an EOT. 3. Submit Formal Request: Provide a detailed request with supporting documentation and revised project schedule. 4. Follow Up: Maintain communication with the client to address queries and secure timely approval.