|
Volume 5 - Number 01 | January 1, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
In the age of instant communication, employers are increasingly aware of their workers’ lost productivity—in the office, traceable distractions such as spam, Internet browsing and personal phone calls can consume a good portion of time that should be dedicated to billable hours. In the field, the distractions aren’t always as easy to monitor. What about justifiable productivity losses? Weather, owner/contractor disagreements, site conditions, injuries, delivery delays, contract ambiguities and other factors can play into the equation. While plenty of theories abound for determining and estimating losses, several methods emerge as industry standards. For example, in this week’s first case, a subcontractor chose the total cost method and the measured mile analysis to calculate productivity losses for its electrical work on a power plant. Despite the prime contractor’s vehement efforts to prohibit mention of the approach in court testimony, the court ruled it was a valid method for determining legitimate losses.
Lost productivity isn’t the only jobsite worry. Contract ambiguities can also wreak havoc on a project. But, ambiguity is not reason enough to void a contract, as one contractor found out. Nor is the mere possibility of a differing site condition, as another contractor learned.
Double dipping is the theme regarding our last two items in this issue. A subcontractor made an unsuccessful attempt to recover attorney fees against the contractor and its surety for a claim of contract non-payment. And, a contractor was penalized for double billing on a transportation project.
|
|
COURT ALLOWS “MEASURED MILE” AND “TOTAL COST” METHODOLOGIES
The “total cost method” approach to calculating lost productivity is not necessarily a ploy to re-bid a project after the work has begun. A U.S. district court judge denies a contractor’s attempt to preclude mention of the approach during a trial involving its subcontractor.
|
|
ATTORNEY FEE RECOVERY LIMITED TO SURETY BOND
A subcontractor may pursue recovery of attorney fees against a contractor’s surety bond for non-payment, but cannot also pursue recovery of fees against the contractor itself.
|
|
ON THE MOVE
Find out who got hired and who got promoted in this new column. Want to see your company’s latest news here? E-mail it to editor@wpl.net.
|
|
