I refer to the letter from Jeremy Winter (NCE 3 June) sent in response to an article written by Peter Shaw of Taylor Joynson Garrett (NCE 20 May). It is not in this company's policy to comment publicly on matters with which it has been involved. Mr Winter's letter however draws us into the debate.
This company has for several years been at the forefront of critical path analysis as it has always been our position that on a dispute of any magnitude involving delay, a contractor should undertake a programme analysis that demonstrates critical delay using contemporaneous information produced during the currency of the contract.
In respect of the suggestion to undertake a critical path analysis to demonstrate entitlement to an extension of time, Mr Shaw was quite correct in his article that the suggestion to do so came from his company.
What Gardiner & Theobald Fairway 'opposed' was the amounts derived from the critical path analysis produced by the claimants expert, which we considered did not reflect the contractor's entitlement.
I would not wish to embarrass anyone by further elaboration.
Iain Wishart, managing director, Gardiner & Theobald Fairway, Macklin Street, London WC2