Construction contracts contain several essential definitions, with three of the most prevalent and occasionally confused being; work, site, and plant.

Disruption is an interference that disturbs or slows down a Contractor's usual working methods, leading to reduced efficiency. Disruption is not the same as delay, however a disruption can be the cause of a delay.

When drafting a quantum and/or delay claim based on several events, claimants commonly use inference rather than causation to build their arguments.  

In the midst of grappling with the intricacies of drafting a construction claim, two pivotal components demand our attention: Global Claims and Contemporaneous Records.

A simplistic, retrospective methodology, which in its simplest form compares the as-built program to the planned (baseline) program.

Increasingly, contractors initial claims assessments are reduced to simply checking invoices received from subcontractors (to prove a cost has been incurred) with negotiation limited to the cost of the rates claimed.

To effectively support construction claims, here are key types of data you should record and reference in your timeline.

Maintaining a detailed timeline of events will support an extension of time and cost claim. Here are the main reasons why a timeline is important.

Tunnelling projects are complicated, and all parties — the customer, EPC contractors and subcontractors — expect the work to be done on-time and on budget but delays and cost overruns happen.

The NEC contract prescribes that an extension of time, delay and quantum be determined prospectively. The NEC contract requires the contractor to maintain an up-to-date program.

The term “Contract Program” is often used in reference to the Construction or Contractor’s Program. The Construction (or Contractor’s) Program is basically the execution plan and timeline of how the works under the Contract will be carried out and measured. It should consider the key sequences of work and resource dependencies. It should also, depending on the Contract, identify the critical path and the relationships between the planned activities and interfaces.

This article considers the contractual requirements regarding the most appropriate and accepted method of delay analysis in the commonly used Australian Standard General Conditions of Contract.

In this article we are going to consider the differences between mitigation, acceleration, and constructive acceleration. The recent case of V601 v Probuild[1] is of interest, as it demonstrates that a constructive acceleration claim can be successful in certain circumstances.

Project teams are often told to keep daily or even hourly records of events that occur on-site if a claim for additional time and cost arises. These records are known as contemporaneous records in that they are ‘recorded’ when the event occurs.

A common question when demonstrating entitlement to an Extension of Time is, who owns the float?

When considering who owns the float, one first must understand the various definitions of 'float' typically associated with construction projects. Secondly, one must understand the applicable contractual clause relating to claiming an extension of time.

Prolongation or delay costs must reflect the actual losses incurred by a claimant unless otherwise stated in the contract.

More often than not, claimants derive prolongation costs by determining an average daily rate taken from the preliminaries and/or indirect costs listed in the contract and multiplying that rate by the number of days delay.

In this on demand presentation Andrew McKenna and Paul McArd discuss what a global claim is and how they can be avoided by using quantum and delay experts.

Delay analysis is not the “dark art” it is often perceived to be. It is simply how to prove the purported delaying events impact (the cause) on time (the effect). The analysis must provide a clear and succinct distinction of the chain of events that have hindered progress and ultimately caused the delay(s) to completion.

When drafting a quantum and/or delay claim based on several events, claimants commonly use inference rather than causation to build their arguments. This approach is sometimes used by claimants as they tend to focus on the monetary amounts lost and/or the delays they have incurred, rather than identifying causation.