Brock

I appreciate your feedback. The FAR you reference re delays does not apply. I guess we would have to make a legal argument they they are interfering in the performance of the contract. Something you said, however, raised this question for me: I was told by a lawyer that in prime contracts with the government (which is not my company's situation), there is case law that stands for the proposition that all FARS related to delays and equitable adjustments apply to all government contracts regardless of whether they are referenced in a specific contract. I do not see how that can be accurate - what would be the point of referencing one but not another FAR then? - but admittedly I am a novice.

That's a good question. The prime has not said as much.

Yes, we are technically a sub. Many FARs (and other regulations) are referenced in the contract and otherwise flowed down to us, but we are not directly contracted with the government.

Yes, health and safety plan. The "AR" is the submittal for approval. Yes, the buyer is actually contracted with the government.

Contractor submits an HSE plan with its bid in 2017 and is awarded the project late the next year. In 2019, when contractor is about to mobilize, it's told to resubmit its HSE plan. It does, and the buyer rejects the plan, calling for detailed procedures to be submitted as well. Contractor submits procedures and receives an approved AR. The contractor again prepares to mobilize, and buyer's technical rep holds up work, now requiring another procedure. At what point do the buyer's demands become unreasonable or, effectively, delays? And does it make any difference that the buyer is a private entity contracted with a government agency? It may be obvious, but I am very much a newbie. Many thanks for any guidance.