About

Publications




Search Construction Advisor Today


  • constructionadvisortoday.com

Bookmark and Share

« LEED Update Includes New Requirements for Accredited Professionals | Main | Straw Bale Construction »

07/30/2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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

can you provide a citation to the case. Thanks.

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)

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.

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?

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

The comments to this entry are closed.