Entry ID
2c8445af-1e2c-46f3-962c-3cb9782d4038
weather
location
entry date
project id
hse summary
qaqc summary
next day plan
plant summary
report footer
decisions made
materials used
progress notes
progress status
works performed
issues and risks
personnel summary
client instructions received
Material placement at CH 7.200 proceeding without formal source approval as required by specification. NATA verification compaction testing requested post-placement — results expected within 48hrs. Potential NCR if material fails to meet specification requirements.
Recommended Action
Quality alert: Document that non-conformance (if it arises) is result of client-directed departure from specification process, not contractor quality failure. If NCR is raised, ensure it references client instruction as root cause. Contractor should not accept quality non-conformance liability for client-directed specification variation. Recommend obtaining independent material testing and retaining samples for dispute resolution if required.
Material placed at CH 7.200 without formal source approval as required by Technical Specification clause 8. NATA verification compaction testing requested — results expected within 48 hours. Potential NCR if material fails specification requirements.
Recommended Action
Ensure NATA test results are expedited and reviewed immediately upon receipt. If material fails any specification parameter (grading, plasticity, durability, moisture, compaction), immediately notify Client Representative and stop further placement of untested material. Prepare NCR documentation if required (noting Client to issue NCR per site diary). Document full chain of events: Client verbal instruction → material placement → testing → results → remedial action if required. Link to VIRF. Escalate to PM and QA Manager.
Contractor proceeding with non-compliant works under Client verbal direction, creating contractual risk exposure. Client Representative acknowledged specification conflict but has not yet provided written confirmation despite commitment to 'send me something'. Potential rework liability, testing costs, and time impact unresolved.
Recommended Action
PM to immediately follow up written confirmation from Roger Rickerby/Example Principal Pty Ltd. Do not place additional untested rock material until written instruction received or source approval process completed. Quantify potential rework cost exposure (320m³ removal and replacement if material fails). Prepare variation cost estimate for additional testing regime. Document that Contractor compliance with verbal direction was conditional on written confirmation and reservation of rights. Consider stopping further non-compliant placement until commercial position is secured.
Verbal instruction from Roger Rickerby (Superintendent, Example Principal Pty Ltd) at 0930hrs on 30/05/2026 directing contractor to place cut rock material from CH 6.500 directly into embankment fill at CH 7.200 without source approval and testing process required by Technical Specification clause 8 (Pavement Materials and Construction). Client stated "we need to keep production up" and would "sort the paperwork later." Approximately 320m³ of unclassified, untested rock material placed under this direction.
Recommended Action
Issue VIRF immediately documenting this instruction. Material has not been tested for grading, plasticity, durability, moisture content, or compaction suitability as required by specification. High rework risk if material fails subsequent testing. Client must provide written confirmation and accept cost/time liability for any rework, testing delays, or non-conformance rectification. Recommend ceasing placement of additional untested material until written direction received.
Client directed placement of untested rock material into embankment without following contractually specified source approval and testing process per Technical Specification clause 8. This represents a departure from contract requirements and creates potential rework exposure if material fails subsequent testing.
Recommended Action
Flag as out-of-scope variation. Document that contractor is proceeding under express client direction only, not as acceptance of varied specification compliance procedure. If material fails testing and rework is required, this is client-directed variation entitling contractor to EOT and cost recovery. PM to review exposure and ensure written direction obtained before additional untested material is placed.
Approximately 320m³ of rock material placed in embankment without required source approval, material classification, or specification testing (grading, plasticity, durability, moisture, compaction suitability). NATA verification testing lodged post-placement — results pending 48hrs. High risk of non-conformance and potential rework requirement.
Recommended Action
Commercial alert: Quantify potential rework cost and schedule impact if placed material fails specification testing. Prepare variation claim documentation covering: (1) cost of removing non-conforming material, (2) cost of replacement with approved material, (3) re-compaction and re-testing costs, (4) EOT for rework duration, (5) disruption and demobilisation/remobilisation costs. Ensure all costs and time impacts are attributed to client direction, not contractor non-compliance. Do not proceed with additional untested material placement without written client acceptance of liability.
Verbal instruction from Roger Rickerby (Superintendent, Example Principal Pty Ltd) at 0930hrs on 2026-05-30 directing incorporation of cut rock material from CH 6.500 directly into embankment lift at CH 7.200 without source approval and testing process required under Technical Specification clause 8 (Pavement Materials and Construction). Client Representative stated need to 'keep production up' and would 'sort the paperwork later'. Material has not been classified or tested for grading, plasticity, durability, moisture, or compaction suitability. Contractor advised of spec conflict and potential rework exposure, proceeding under Client direction with written confirmation requested.
Recommended Action
Generate formal VIRF immediately. Document verbal instruction with all details including time, person, specification clause bypassed, material quantities (320m³), and Client Representative's acknowledgment of spec conflict. Attach to NATA test results when received. Escalate to PM for commercial review — potential variation for additional testing, rework if material fails, and time impact. Reserve rights for cost/time associated with compliance and any remedial works.
Project currently 1% behind baseline programme due to rock encountered in cut at CH 6.500 slowing excavation rate. Recovery plan in place via extended shifts Thursday/Friday, but additional risk exists if placed rock material fails testing and rework is required.
Recommended Action
Monitor recovery plan execution closely. If NATA test results (due within 48hrs) indicate material failure, immediately reassess programme impact including rework duration. Update programme recovery scenario planning to account for potential remedial works. Notify Client Representative if recovery plan is jeopardised by test failure. Consider EOT notification if rework is directed and impacts critical path.
Rock encountered in cut at CH 6.500 outside expected zones per geotechnical drawings. Slowed excavation rate causing -1% schedule variance. Superintendent's diary notes this is outside design assumptions.
Recommended Action
Document differing site conditions. If geotechnical drawings did not show rock in this location, this may constitute a latent condition entitling contractor to EOT and cost recovery for additional rock excavation effort. Request PM to review geotechnical report and drawings to confirm whether rock was foreseeable. Quantify additional excavation costs and program impact. Recovery plan through extended shifts may mitigate schedule impact but additional costs remain recoverable if this is a variation event.
Project running -1% behind baseline schedule due to unexpected rock in cut at CH 6.500. Recovery planned through extended shifts Thursday/Friday.
Recommended Action
Monitor recovery plan execution. If extended shifts are required to recover client-caused delay (unexpected rock outside geotech drawings), additional shift costs and overtime premiums should be claimed as variation. Document that recovery effort is contractor mitigation of client-caused delay, not acceptance of liability for delay.
Rock encountered in cut at CH 6.500 outside expected zones per geotechnical drawings. Material characteristics differ from contract documents, requiring placement methodology variation and potentially impacting programme recovery.
Recommended Action
Document variance between actual ground conditions and geotechnical drawings. Cross-reference with contract soil/rock profiles and anticipated material schedules. Assess impact on programme recovery plan (currently -1% behind baseline). If rock volumes exceed contract assumptions, prepare variation claim for changed ground conditions. Monitor ongoing excavation and quantities.
Dear Sir/Madam, I refer to verbal instructions issued by Mr Roger Rickerby, Superintendent for Example Principal Pty Ltd, at 0930 hours on 30 May 2026. Mr Rickerby directed the Contractor to incorporate cut rock material from CH 6.500 directly into embankment fill at CH 7.200 without following the source approval and testing process required under Technical Specification clause 8 (Pavement Materials and Construction). The Client Representative stated the need to "keep production up" and advised he would "sort the paperwork later." The Contractor advised Mr Rickerby of the specification conflict and potential rework exposure prior to proceeding. Approximately 320m³ of unclassified and untested rock material has been placed in the embankment lift under this direction. The material has not been tested for grading, plasticity, durability, moisture content, or compaction suitability as required by specification. NATA verification testing has been requested and results are expected within 48 hours. Should the material fail to meet specification requirements, rework may be necessary including removal and replacement with approved material. The Contractor notes that rock was encountered at CH 6.500 outside the zones indicated in the geotechnical drawings, which has contributed to the current 1% schedule variance. Recovery is planned through extended shifts on Thursday and Friday. The Contractor reserves the right to claim additional cost and time associated with: - Additional testing requirements - Potential rework if material fails specification - Schedule impact and recovery measures - Any remedial works required Written confirmation of this instruction is requested as committed by Mr Rickerby. This record is made to document verbal instructions given by the Client Representative. The Contractor reserves the right to claim additional cost and/or time associated with compliance with this instruction. Yours faithfully, [Contractor Representative]
Submitted by operators for Saturday 30 May 2026 via Timekeeper.
No operator entries for this date yet.
Hours submitted from the field will appear here automatically.
Captured in Timekeeper by the operator on site. Approve to sign the hours off; amend to correct them — the operator's original submission is always kept alongside. Releasing locks a timesheet and feeds the pay-period summaries. Operators are managed in Timekeeper.
Earthworks progressed at CH 6.200 to CH 7.400. Embankment lift placement on the western side. -1% behind baseline due to rock encountered in cut at CH 6.500 yesterday. Recovery planned through extended shifts Thursday/Friday.
No formal source approval issued for the rock material being placed at CH 7.200. NATA test request lodged for verification compaction testing on placed material — results expected within 48hrs. NCR may be required if material fails to meet spec. Client will need to isssue NCR Not us.
Discussed the spec conflict directly with Roger before proceeding. Roger acknowledged the spec requirement but directed us to continue. Reiterated that we will be requiring written confirmation and reserving rights on cost/time impact if material fails testing and rework is required. Roger said "fine, send me something.