Contractors frequently support delay claims with "as-built" schedules. When compared to an as-planned schedule, an as-built purports to show the impact of the other party's shortcomings on critical path construction activities, thereby establishing compensable delay. The problem is that as-built schedules are usually not maintained contemporaneously with contract performance. They are generated after a dispute has arisen.
In a case reported this week, a contractor's expert prepared an as-built schedule that was not tied to contemporaneous project records or the testimony of individuals with personal knowledge of events in the field. In fact, some assumptions in the as-built schedule were inconsistent with the contractor's daily reports and correspondence. Needless to say, this did not enhance the credibility of the as-built schedule.
Other cases reported this week address a deductive change order and the application of federal contract dispute procedures to a subcontractor's claim. A New York court allowed deletion of a substantial portion of the contract work without compensation for lost profit. And, the Montana Supreme Court upheld an injunction against arbitration of a subcontractor's claim for extra work.
This page is available to members only. To subscribe, click here
Construction Claims Online Features and Benefits
Whether your role in the construction claims process is as a building owner, designer, contractor, facility manager, attorney or consultant, you will want to keep up with the latest developments in construction law, federal and state policy, construction process and best practices.
Whether you sign up for our free or paid content, Construction Claims Online provides information you need to achieve successful outcomes for project issues and your clients' best interests.
Avoid costly errors by understanding how the boards and courts look at typical disputes situations. Achieve successful project outcomes. Defend against unsubstantiated claims. Reduce or eliminate risks.
