Volume 2 - Number 50 | December 13, 2004 - Construction Claims Advisor

Sample Issue

Bookstore

Editorial Board

Construction Law Sites

Past Issues

Press Releases

Forums

You are here: Home » Volume 2 - Number 50 | December 13, 2004

Volume 2 - Number 50 | December 13, 2004

EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 2-50: The first case this week covers a second set of Mortenson appeals before the Armed Services Board of Appeals dealing with ambiguous drawings on the Elmsdorf Air Base project. Case two covers what restitution is applicable when a subcontractor performs sub-standard work. The last case, involving a contract signed 20 years ago, makes a distinction between the four year statute of limitations for omissions relating to management verses the ten year statute of limitations for written contracts. In Digests, we continue last week’s coverage of the Fall 2004 Construction Lawyer, dealing with liquidated damages and recommended payment provisions. Tips and Techniques reports on a useful and recommended resource dealing with CPM schedule reviews and Time Impact Analysis.

CPM SCHEDULE REVIEW AND TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS — STEP-BY-STEP TUTORIAL: Until more universal best practices are developed, we found this excellent set of guidelines to CPM schedule development and baseline/update reviews using Primavera P3 at the TxDOT website. In addition, the Guidelines includes a chapter on TIA analysis using both Pre-Impact and Post-Impact methodologies.

Fall 2004 Construction Lawyer - Liquidated Damages and Payment Provisions: Last week, we summarized the Fall 2004 Construction Lawyer’s state-by-state survey of conditional payment clauses. The comprehensive issue included several other articles worth mentioning, including liquidated damages, certificate of merit statutes and a proposal for payment clause changes.

DEFECTIVE DRAWINGS DO NOT JUSTIFY LACK OF COORDINATION: ASBCA denies four additional Mortenson claims at Air Force base project due to improper drawing coordination.