Construction Delays Due to Design Requirements and Concurrent Events

Construction delays are not always easy to categorize or segregate. On a complex project, activities on the schedule’s critical path may be delayed by multiple factors. Some may be the responsibility of the owner; some the responsibility of the contractor; and some the responsibility of neither party. Compounding the problem is the fact that the impact of multiple delay events may be experienced concurrently.

In a recent case, a contract allowed a design/build contractor to fast-track the project. The government insisted, however, on 100 percent final design completion before the contractor commenced construction. Obviously, this caused delay. But was the government responsible for all the delay? The government could point to periods where the contractor had failed to submit an adequate site plan and failed to provide a required quality control program. It was necessary to apportion responsibility for the delay to project completion.

I'd like feedback on how you track and document delay, particularly in the face of multiple delay causes and concurrent delay.  As always, I welcome all comments below.

Don't miss, In the upcoming issues of Construction Claims Advisor . . . case summaries and articles covering:

• Pre-Construction Delay Apportioned on Design/Build Project
• Revocation of Acceptance Upheld on One Contract and Set Aside on Another
• Rejection of Low BID was not Retaliation for Prior Suit

Bruce Jervis, Esq., Senior Editor

Comments

[Tony Caletka]

Bruce, I've described a very detailed method and provided an actual case study demonstrating how to apportion delays amongst multiple parties, and along parallel critical paths, in chapter 6 of "Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts." (Wiley-Blackwell, 2008)

Regards,

Tony Caletka

[Vernon Howerton]

can you provide a citation to the case. Thanks.

[Bruce Jervis, Editor, Construction Claims Advisor]

I haven't had a chance to look at Mr. Caletka's "Delay Anaylsis" chapter yet, but it sounds like a good source of information. Thanks. The citation to the case follows.

Appeal of ADT Construction Group, Inc.
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, No. 55307 (July 9, 2009)

[Bill]

Owner has a case of CR(Cranial Rectitus). 100 % plans prior to commencement with construction is completely counterintuitive to the spirit & intent of the Design/Build process. Fast tracking/integation of design into the construction process being central to the spirit & intent of a proactive alternate contracting method(than Des-Bid-Build).

CPM should help with extraction of cranium. If all accepted/bought into a CPM, any impacts can be evaluluated. Then players can move on to causation & apportioning. KEY here is having a scheudle tool with bi-lateral acceptance & credibity which all activities & impacts can be accurately represented & measured.

KEY to credibility is ALL believing CPM accurately reflects an ACTUALLY DEVELOPED and CONSIDERED IN BUDGET & WORK COORDINATION PRECONSTRUCTION PLAN to accomplish the work. THen any changes to this plan can be accurately relected & overall completion projections & resutling changes/impacts(good, bad or indifferent) can be bi-laterally agreed to.

[Dominick DeSalvo]

This was not a fast-track project if no construction could be done before the design was complete. As far as delays to the project, was the As-Planned schedule based on fast tracking the project and the government changed the requirement for 100% design or was the requirement for 100% always part of the contract?

[company logo design]

Well don't know whats going on but its not a Good way to do this. in my opinion we have to look again about this issue