Fair and reasonable assessment in granting extension of time

Abstract

In most contracts, the employers delegate the role of assessing the contractor’s application for extension of time to the Contract Administrators or Superintending Officers. In making any determination under a building contract, Contract Administrators or Superintending Officers have the duty to act fairly and reasonably on a rational basis. Any assessment they make must be based on reasons that can stand up to scrutiny by the other parties to the contract. They should carry out a detailed, logical and methodical analysis of the documents and other evidence submitted in support of the application for an extension of time. Failure to act fairly can lead to invalidation of their certificates. However, it is difficult to give the actual definition of ?fair and reasonable assessment’ in granting extension of time. A dispute arises when there is an issue of determining whether the Contract Administrator or Superintending Officer acts correctly regarding the ‘fair and reasonable assessment’ in granting extension of time. The objective of this study is to identify how Superintending Officers or Contract Administrators approach their duties in assessing Extension Of Time fairly and reasonably. The approach adopted in this research is based on four case laws and five case studies in housing projects located in various areas in Pahang, hoping that the findings will assist the Superintending Officers or Contract Administrators to assess the Extension Of Time to contractors fairly and reasonably. However, an analysis of past courts’ judgments indicate no case law that clearly defines ‘fair’ and ‘reasonable’ assessment for granting extension of time, although the English case of John Barker Construction Ltd v London Portman Hotel Ltd (1996) 83 BLR 31, held that there was a guideline for the Superintending Officers or Contractor Administrators to act in a fair and reasonable way in assessing the contractor’s applications for extension of time.