Delay in the performance of a complex construction project typically comes from multiple sources. It is not a solely owner-caused or contractor-caused delay. Sometimes the impact of multiple delay events is experienced concurrently. The challenge is to segregate and apportion responsibility for delay of activities on a schedule’s critical path.

In a case reported this week, a contract allowed a design-build contractor to fast track the project, commencing construction of early phases of the work before final design was complete for later phases. The government insisted, however, on 100 percent final design before the contractor started work. This, of course, delayed commencement of construction. Not all the delay was caused by the government, however. The contractor failed to produce an adequate site plan and an adequate quality control plan in a timely manner, contributing to the delay. The Armed Services Board was asked to apportion responsibility.

Other cases reported this week involve rejection of a low bidder as non-responsible and the revocation of acceptance of work long after completion. There was sufficient evidence of lack of responsibility and the municipal project owner was not retaliating against the contractor for a prior lawsuit. In the other case, revocation of acceptance was allowed on one contract 10 months after discovery of misrepresentations by the contractor. But revocation under another contract, 22 months after the fact, was not allowed.