Maximum Time Interval Between Commissioning Tests and Energization of Equipment

The only additional consideration I can think of is the "AHJ" or Authority Having Jurisdiction.

In our part of the world the AHJ can be a combination of the supply company, provincial Health and Safety, and the provincial and possibly municipal authorities.

Then you can add on to that your insurance company.

They all want their say.

Supply company wants to be sure nothing takes down their system or risks their employees.

Health and Safety don't want an employee injured (causing pain, suffering, and $$$).

Provincial wants to make sure it meets the provincial code.

Municipal I think just want the fee- because everyone that matters has signed off.

Insurance company doesn't want a liability $$$.

Of course the contractor refused. They were not responsible for the delay.

However, it was probably a good idea to repeat some of the tests, but it should be at the client's expense.

(All of this assumes fairly normal contracts and that the situation has been accurately described.)

Assuming we are only speaking about the technical/engineering aspect of the issue, how long in time shall we need to repeat some of the tests? All of the tests? (I was informed that in the South African standard SANS 10198 Part 13 edition 2, it states that for new and re-commisioned equipment, the interval between testing and energizing from the system shall be minimum no more than 24 hours)

Vulgar/Rude/Improper Behavior: This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the Rules of Conduct.

It is common practice that if you as a munisipality invest in infrastructure with the idea that it will generate income to justify the expenditure that you will put a limit on the time that it will take for that income to become available (just immagine building a house for rental income and your customer decide to only move in after 24 months without paying and expect from you to maintain and keep it squater free) and in the case of energy it is as short as possible as the hardware (copper cable) is highly prone to theft and damage. If it is not in use it is not protected. It is not as stupid as you make it out and you also proof that you know nothing about apartheid.

You missed the whole point.

Regardless of risk and common sense it all comes back to what the signed contracts say between all the individual parties.

Many of us at one time or another in our careers have had something like this happen. Probably the best you can hope for is performing partial tests after consulting with the transformer manufacturer as to what they would suggest, then get customer signoff. A compromise between risk, cost and common sense.

As to who pays the bill, well that is a separate fight, and may well be one the main supplier may have to absorb (depending on how the customer feels). It is likely not going to be the contractor given the circumstances (but again it depends what the contracts say).

Let us know the outcome.

Yes I think the client is correct, and who would argue? This seems to be about who pays for the work, and that would be the entity responsible for the delay, and that lies in the realm of the law...so this is primarily a legal question as to who's liable, if anybody, and an independent consultant should be called upon for arbitration first, to see if some agreement can be reached...the independent consultant should be agreed upon by both parties...and an agreement signed by both parties to abide by the independent consultants findings and recommendations....

You have given no reason for the delay, nor who was/is responsible for such an unacceptable lapse.

I would think that there either is a reason to perform the tests again and proceed with commissioning the equipment, or not to proceed and go to court. Either way, a lot of expensive, revenue generating, equipment is out of service and costing someone a lot of money every day.

IEEE Std 1861™-2014 IEEE Guide for On-Site Acceptance Tests of ...may, or may not, help you.

If you are not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem.

The issue should be addressed as to who's party caused the delay.

The one who caused the delay should handle the expenses.

Not "who's", it's whose.

<...Is the client, contractor or consultant correct?...> The contract documents, which cannot be seen from here, will determine the answer to this question.