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.

Subscribers: click here for the full story

Non-Subscribers: click here to subscribe