Construction Contract and Administration

“When preparing the Master Programme (cl the Contractor carried out some risk analysis that resulted in the addition of some float in several activities in the programme. These floats were identified on the programme submitted to the Architect.
One of these activities was the wooden floor in the refectory. Before this activity was about to start the Contractor, asked the Architect to confirm the way the wooden flooring should be laid? (i.e. should the grain be laid across the floor or along the floor? The Architect approached the supplier/manufacturer of the wooden board flooring. however their technical advisor was away on holiday for two weeks and no answer could be given until she returned. By the time the Architect has a response and issued an instruction, the activity had been delayed and the contractor estimated would not be completed until one 1 day after the date shown on the programme, thus threatening the ‘completion date’ by one day.
The contractor wrote claiming that the ‘completion date’ may be delayed up to two weeks, citing ‘relevant event’ cl 2.29.7. The Architect responded within 5 days fixing the completion date one day later. He explained in a covering letter that the float — identified by the contractor in his programme – was owned by the project and not the contractor. Advise on the contractual position?”