Tag Archives: excusable delay

SPECIFICATION CHALLENGE; EXCUSABLE DELAY; TYPE I DIFFERING SITE CONDITION; SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE

Posted on by

An Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dispute, Appeal of L.S. Black-Loeffel Civil Constructors JV, ASBCA No. 62402, 2023 WL 5827241 (ASBCA 2023), involved which party bore liability for delay—the federal government or the prime contractor–based on various legal theories.  Without detailing the factual details, a number of interesting legal issues were raised in this dispute including (1) a defective specification challenge, (2) excusable delay, (3) Type I differing site condition, and (4) superior knowledge.  These legal issues are discussed below.

1. Specification Challenge (Defective Specifications)

The contractor claimed that the government’s specifications were defective in regard to a thermal control plan. The government countered that the specifications were not design specifications but performance specifications. The specifications were performance based because they did not tell the contractor how to achieve the performance-based criteria.

[A] defective specification cause of action only applies to defective design specifications; it does not apply to allegedly defective performance specifications.

***

Performance specifications set forth an objective or standard to be achieved, and the successful bidder is expected to exercise his ingenuity in achieving that objective or standard of performance, selecting the means and assuming a corresponding responsibility for that selection. Design specifications, in contrast, describe in precise detail the materials to be employed and the manner in which the work is to be performed. The contractor has no discretion to deviate from the specifications, but is required to follow them as one would a road map.

The amount of discretion the specifications give to the contractor in execution of the contract is a question of contract interpretation, which is a matter of law for this Board to decide.

L.S. Black-Loeffel, supra (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2. Excusable Delay

The contractor claimed the government constantly rejected its thermal control plan without providing any reason other than it was incomplete and did not meet the specifications, and this caused an excusable delay to the project.

To establish entitlement to an extension based on excusable delay, a contractor must who that the delay resulted from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, and the unforeseeable cause must delay the overall contract completion, i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance. Similarly, where both parties contribute to the delay, neither can recover damage, unless there is the proof of clear apportionment of the delay and the expensive attributable to each party.

L.S. Black-Loeffel, supra (internal citations and quotations omitted).

The Board found that the government reviewed the contractor’s thermal control plan within the timeframe in the contract. “The fact that [the contractor] needed multiple submittals speaks more to the incomplete nature of its submittals than it does to any delays on the part of the government.” L.S. Black-Loeffel, supra (“[I]n every instance, the government provided a facially reasonable basis for rejecting the submittal and [the contractor] has not presented a single piece of evidence challenging those bases.”).

3. Type I Differing Site Condition

The contractor further contended that historical water tables incorporated into the contract “bound the government regarding the water levels [the contractor] would encounter and that water levels it encountered constituted a Type I differing site condition.” L.S. Black-Loeffel, supra.

In order to establish a Type I differing site condition, a contractor must prove all four of the following elements: (1) that a reasonable contractor would interpret the contract documents as making a representation of the site conditions; (2) the actual site conditions were not reasonably foreseeable such that the contractor reasonably relied on the representations; (3) the contractor did in fact rely on the contract representation; and (4) the conditions differed materially from those represented and the contractor suffered damages as a result.

L.S. Black-Loeffel, supra.

The first element is based on the contract; it’s a matter of contract interpretation. Id.   However, here, the contract stated that the actual water levels may vary from those indicated in the historical hydrographs.  Id. (“The contract, and the hydrographs themselves, say nothing about the precise conditions the contract would encounter during performance.”). Thus, the Board found that the historical hydrographs of water tables did not constitute a representation of site conditions.  Id.

The second element includes reasonable foreseeability. Weather, regardless of severity, is not considered a differing site condition under the Federal Acquisition Regulations differing site conditions clause.  Id. (“[T]he differing site conditions clause applies only to conditions which existed at the time of contracting; weather conditions which occur during the contract period are not covered by the differing site conditions clause.”).  Here, the Board found that high water tables was a weather condition where the contractor was offered additional time, but not additional compensation. Id. (“A contractor usually is only entitled to additional time for unusually severe weather, but the government has no legal responsibility for the additional costs incurred.”).

4. Superior Knowledge

The contractor also claimed the government had superior knowledge of the design and construction of a component of the project and did not share it. “The doctrine of superior knowledge is based upon the premise that, where the government has knowledge of vital information that will affect a contractor’s performance, the government is obligated to share that information.” L.S. Black-Loeffel, supra.

“In order to recover a claim based on superior knowledge, the contractor must show: (1) the contractor undertook performance without vital knowledge of a fact that affects performance costs or duration; (2) the government was aware the contractor had no knowledge of the vital information and no reason to obtain such information; (3) the contract specification supplied misled the contractor or did not put it on notice to inquire; and (4) the government failed to provide relevant information.” Id.  This argument is “grounded in the government’s warranty of its contract specifications.” Id.

However, because the specifications were performance-based, the Board found this did not apply – “[b]ecause no warranty attaches to the government’s performance specifications, it has no duty to disclose superior knowledge.” Id.  Moreover, the government had no way of knowing the contractor had no knowledge of the purported vital information and no reason to obtain it to support a superior knowledge argument.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

IS THE EVENT YOU ARE CLAIMING AS UNFORESEEABLE DELAY REALLY UNFORESEEABLE?

Posted on by

Is the item or event you are claiming as an unforeseeable, excusable delay really unforeseeable?  This is not a trick question.

Just because your construction contract identifies items or events that constitute unforeseeable, excusable delay does not mean those items can be used as a blanket excuse or crutch for the contractor.  That would be unfair.

For instance, it is not uncommon for a construction contract to list as unforeseeable, excusable delay the following events or items: “(i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) act of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers.” See, e.g., F.A.R. 52.249-10(b)(1).  While the itemization of excusable delay may be worded differently, the point is there may be a listing as to what items or events constitute excusable delay.  An excusable delay would justify additional time and, potentially, compensation to the contractor.

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals explained that a listing of items or events leading to unforeseeable, excusable delay is NOT intended to give the contractor free rein or a get-of-jail free card if the contractor encounters such delaying item or event:

Nevertheless, the mere fact that a delay is caused by a type of activity listed in the contract as generally excusable does not give the contractor carte blanche to rely upon such excuses. “The purpose of the proviso,” which is “to protect the contractor against the unexpected, and its grammatical sense both militate against holding that the listed events are always to be regarded as unforeseeable, no matter what the attendant circumstances are.” As the Supreme Court has explained, “[a] quarantine, or freight embargo, may have been in effect for many years as a permanent policy of the controlling government” and, if so, may not meet the definition of a cause “unforeseeable” at the time of contract award, even if quarantines and freight embargoes are listed in the contract as examples of possible excusable causes of delay.

Further, even if an unforeseeable cause of delay occurs, the contractor cannot sit back and fail to take reasonable steps in response to it — once such an unforeseeable event occurs, the contractor affected by it has an obligation to attempt to mitigate the resulting damage to the extent that it can. If the contractor fails to do so, it “may not recover those damages which could have been avoided by reasonable precautionary action on its part.”

Yates-Desbuild Joint Venture v. Department of State, CBCA 3350, 2017 WL 4296219 (CBCA 2017) (internal citations omitted).

Now, think about your construction contract.  It may list similar items or events constituting delay.  Perhaps it expands on this list and identifies COVID, the Russia-Ukraine war, or supply chain impacts.  Similar to the reasoning above, “the mere fact that a delay is caused by a type of activity listed in the contract as generally excusable does not give the contractor carte blanche to rely upon such excuses.”  Yates-Desbuild Joint Venture, supra.  We know of the existence of COVID, the Russia-Ukraine war, and current supply chain impacts such that they are not unforeseeable.  And, encountering such an item or event cannot be used to compensate for other delays as the contractor “cannot sit back and fail to take reasonable steps in response to it.”  Yates-Desbuild Joint Venture, supra. The contractor still must mitigate the item or event it claims is causing excusable delay.

This serves as an example as to why you want clarity in your construction contract.  If you are identifying an item or event as unforeseeable, make sure it truly is or specify the context in which the item or event constitutes excusable delay.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

PRESENTING A “TOTAL TIME” DELAY CLAIM IS NOT SUFFICIENT

Posted on by

When presenting a delay-type of claim on a construction project, a claimant MUST be in a position to properly PROVE the claim.  Trying to present a delay claim loosey-goosey is not a recipe for success.  In fact, it can be a recipe for an easy loss. This is not what you want.  To combat this, make sure you engage a delay expert that understands delay methodologies and how to calculate delay and do NOT present a total time claim. Presenting a delay claim using a total time approach, discussed below, makes it too easy to attack the flaws and credibility of the approach.  Per the discussion of the case below, a total time claim with a contractor that used its project manager, versus a delay expert, to support its claim turned the contractor’s claim into a loss.

In French Construction, LLC v. Department of Veteran Affairs, 2022 WL 3134507, CBCA 6490 (CBCA 2022), a contractor submitted a delay claim to the government for almost $400,000. The contractor was hired to construct a two-story corridor to connect hospital buildings.  The contractor was required to be complete within 365 days. It was not.  The contractor was seeking 419 days of delay from the government. The contractor’s “delay expert” was its project manager who compared the contractor’s as-planned schedule to an as-built schedule he prepared for the claim.

“To show how the critical path of contract performance evolved over the life of the contract and how excusable delays impacted that path, a contractor, at a minimum, needs a reasonable ‘as planned’ schedule and an ‘as built’ schedule, which it can incorporate into an analysis to show ‘the interdependence of any one or more of the work items with any other work items’ as the project progressed.” French Construction, supra (quotation and citation omitted).

Unfortunately, because the project manager was not a true delay expert, there were material flaws in his methodology from a critical path causation standpoint and a calculation of delay standpoint.  Basically, which is a big no-no, the project manager did a total time claim by simply taking the delta between as-planned and actual completion dates and focusing on durations while skipping the causation.

Under the ‘total time theory,” the contractor simply takes the original and extended completion dates, computes therefrom the intervening time or overrun, points to a host of individual delay incidents for which defendant was allegedly responsible and which ‘contributed’ to the overall extended time, and then leaps to the conclusion that the entire overrun time was attributable to defendant. The [total time] theory of proving delay is insufficient to meet the contractor’s burden to prove that government-caused delay actually delayed the overall completion of the project. [The contractor’s project manager] testified about the drawing delays and other problems that delayed demolition of the building without providing a sufficient showing that all the days of delay were attributable to this cause….

The remainder of [the contractor’s] delay claim suffers from the same problem. [The project manager] simply subcontracted the planned duration from the actual duration and identified that as the period of delay. [The project manager], in his report, then generally describes challenges or issues that [the contractor] faced during periods…without any specifics, to those issues.  [The project manager’s] opinions regarding the causes of delay amount to ‘broad generalities and inferences” that are insufficient to carry [the contractor’s] burden to prove compensable delay.

French Construction, supra (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

FORMAL REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT CONSTRUCTIVE ACCELERATION

Posted on by

Does a constructive acceleration claim require the contractor to always request an extension of time which is then denied by the owner?  While this is certainly the preference and the contractor should be requesting an extension of time as a matter of course for an excusable delay, the answer is NO! in certain circumstances.  This is conveyed in the factually detailed case discussed below where a formal request for an extension of time was not required for the contractor to support its constructive acceleration claim.

But first, what is constructive acceleration:

Constructive acceleration “occurs when the government demands compliance with an original contract deadline, despite excusable delay by the contractor.” The Federal Circuit in Fraser defined the elements of constructive acceleration as follows:

(1) that the contractor encountered a delay that is excusable under the contract; (2) that the contractor made a timely and sufficient request for an extension of the contract schedule; (3) that the government denied the contractor’s request for an extension or failed to act on it within a reasonable time; (4) that the government insisted on completion of the contract within a period shorter than the period to which the contractor would be entitled by taking into account the period of excusable delay, after which the contractor notified the government that it regarded the alleged order to accelerate as a constructive change in the contract; and (5) that the contractor was required to expend extra resources to compensate for the lost time and remain on schedule.

Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, *42 (Fed.Cl. 2022) quoting Fraser Constr. Co. v. U.S., 384 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted).

Of importance, different formulations proving the elements of constructive acceleration can be used.  Id. (where Court discussed three essential elements to constructive acceleration: “excusable delay, an order to accelerate, and acceleration with attendant costs.”

In Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, discussed below, the Court stated the “Fraser standard requiring the contractor to submit a time extension request would not be appropriate here since the evidence established that the Government was insisting on compliance with the original schedule despite the [known] delay caused by the global stability dispute.”  Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, supra, at *43.  A formal request for a time extension was not required by the contractor to support and sustain its constructive acceleration claim.

In this case, a contractor was hired to demolish existing piers and design and construct a new ship wharf and other structures.  During construction, the government sent a letter (supported by its engineer) questioning the structural global stability of the contractor’s design and the design’s conformance with the government’s request for proposals AFTER the design had already been approved.  This resulted in what the contractor claims was an excusable delay because no reasonable contractor would have moved forward when the government lost confidence in the structural integrity of the design; thus, the contractor could not perform critical path activities until the issue was resolved.  When a certain redesign over a different issue (dealing with a batter pile issue) was approved, the global stability issue was put to bed by the government and the contractor implemented its acceleration plan.

The Federal Claims Court went through constructive acceleration factors recognizing different formulations of the elements can be applied to support the claim.

 

(1) Excusable Delay

The government argued its letter questioning the global stability of the design did not stop the contractor’s critical path work.  Rather, the work was stopped so the contractor could complete a batter pile redesign.  Further, the government argued that even if the letter caused a delay, it would have been concurrent with the contractor’s redesign which would have prevented the contractor from completing the work absent the global stability issue.

The Federal Claims Court, however, found that the delay was the result of the government’s letter questioning the global stability of the design and design’s conformance with the request for proposals.

Here, months after approving the design, the Government informed [the contractor] that it believed the design might be out of conformance with the RFP, an unforeseeable act given the Government’s prior approval.  Because the entire design was called into question, it was reasonable for [the contractor] to stop critical path work until the issue was resolved. [The contractor’s] reaction that the Navy’s March 8 letter questioning its design was a ‘bombshell’ and a ‘very, very scary moment’ underscored its reasonable concern about the Project’s path forward.

Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, supra, at *44.

The Federal Claims Court also rejected the government’s concurrent delay argument.

The Government further contends that delays due to the Delta 12 [batter pile] redesign and global stability were concurrent, which would preclude Plaintiff from recovering. “Where both parties contribute to the delay, neither can recover damage[s], unless there is in the proof a clear apportionment of the delay and the expense attributable to each party.”  However, the record indicates that the Delta 12 redesign delay occurred after the global stability issue delay, not concurrently. This is evident from the fact that [the contractor] was able to start some critical construction work on May 7 — 20 days before the Delta 12 redesign was even approved — once it felt assured the global stability issue would be resolved based on emails from the Government. The Government approved the Delta 12 redesign on May 27, 2010, but work on the redesign was not performed until later. The Court is persuaded by Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion that there were two separate acceleration periods: Acceleration Period 1 covering June through November 2010 resulting from the global  stability issue….

Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, supra, at *44.

 

(2) Government Knowledge of Excusable Delay

The Federal Claims Court found that the government was well aware of the delay due to the global stability design issue.  Further, government representatives were at the site daily and attended daily production meetings. The delay caused by the government’s concern over the global stability of the design was not a surprise.

 

(3) Government Statements that Can be Construed as Acceleration Orders

The contractor never formally requested an extension of time because it was understood the government required the project to be completed ahead of the contract completion date, and time extensions would not be granted.  Even after the global stability design issue was resolved which included the known work stoppage, the government still pressed the contractor to complete on time.  The government even notified the contractor its concern in the decline in the float available in the schedule and that if the float becomes negative the contractor will be required to submit a recovery plan.  “Here, the Government’s repeated warnings that [the contractor] maintain the original project schedule despite a critical path work stoppage of over two months constituted an order to accelerate.”   Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, supra, at *48.

 

(4) Government on Notice of Constructive Change Claim

Although the government claimed it had no notice of the contractor’s constructive change claim, the Federal Claims Court found: “[t]he contracting officer had actual knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to [the contractor’s] constructive change claim, because it was the Government that issued the letters questioning [the contractor’s] previously approved design, requested KPFF [contractor’s engineer] to respond to BergerABAM’s [government engineer’s] letters, and reiterated that [the contractor] needed to adhere to the schedule, which caused [the contractor] to accelerate after the stoppage of critical path work.” Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba, supra, at *48

 

(5) Costs Incurred for Constructive Acceleration

The Federal Claims Court found that the contractor proved it incurred costs due to the constructive acceleration.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

“TIME IS MONEY!” IN CONSTRUCTION AND THIS IS WHY THERE IS A LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION

Posted on by

In construction, the adage “Time is Money!” rings true for all parties involved on a project.  This includes an owner of a project that wants a project completed on time, i.e., by a substantial completion date.   While substantial completion is often defined as when an owner can use a project for its intended purpose, this intended purpose typically equates to beneficial occupancy (in new construction) and other factors as identified in the contract.

The best mechanism for an owner to reinforce time and the substantial completion date is through a liquidated damages provision (also known as an LD provision) that includes a daily monetary rate for each day of delay to the substantial completion date.

A liquidated damages provision is not designed, and should NEVER be designed, to serve as a penalty because then it would be unenforceable.  Instead, it should be designed to reasonably compensate an owner for delay to the substantial completion date that cannot be ascertained with any reasonable degree of certainty at the time the contract is being negotiated and executed.  (Liquidated damages are MUCH easier to prove than actual damages an owner may incur down the road.)  As an owner, you don’t really want to assess liquidated damages because that means the project is not substantially completed on time.  And, in reality, a timely completed and performing project should always be better and more profitable than a late and underperforming project.   However, without the liquidated damages provision, there isn’t a great way to hold a contractor’s feet to the fire with respect to the substantial completion date.

There are numerous ways to equitably craft a liquidated damages provision if it is a negotiated provision (like in private projects).  It can be based on project phases or milestones. It can be based on one substantial completion date.  It can include a grace period.  It can include gradual increases in the daily rate based on certain time periods associated with delay.  It can be capped at a certain amount to cap the exposure.  The bottom line is that it is a risk that gets factored into the contract and substantial completion date to emphasize timely completion.

Many construction contracts will contain a mutual waiver of consequential damages provision.  This provision may include specific examples of consequential damages.  In other words, regardless of whether such examples truly constitute consequential damages, these damages examples are contractually mutually waived by the parties.  Two examples commonly include loss of use damages and increased  or additional financing damages.  These two examples are categories that do go hand-in-hand with an untimely project.  For instance, if a project is late, the owner cannot use the project by the substantial completion date and will have increased and/or additional financing costs.  Without a liquidated damages provision, and with a mutual waiver of consequential damages provision, an owner may be sh*t out of luck with recovering delay damages for a delayed project because primary actual delay damages they could prove have been waived.  (Thus, there is nothing holding the contractor’s feet to the fire regarding the substantial completion date.)  Hence, if you are going to negotiate having no liquidated damages provision, be mindful of the mutual waiver of consequential damages provision and what you may be conceding.

This is important: simply because there is a liquidated damages provision does not mean a contractor should unilaterally be exposed to liquidated damages for a delayed project.  There may be legitimate excusable delay that needs to get factored in including excusable compensable delay meaning the contractor is owed its own delay damages.  There could be concurrent delay that needs to get factored in.  While an owner may not accept a contractor’s request for additional time or claimed excusable or concurrent delay, this does not mean a contractor is just going to cave when it comes to an owner’s assessment and withholding of sums associated with liquidated damages.  Most contractors are not going to unless it is irrefutable that the delay to substantial completion was caused by them (more specifically, a trade).

A contractor agreeing to a liquidated damages provision needs to make sure that it flows the risk downstream to trades that may cause the delay.  A contractor still needs to prove the trade caused the delay, but the contractor must flow-down that risk.  If a trade is unwilling to assume that risk, that needs to be considered by the contractor.  In any event, the contractor cannot agree that the trade is not liable for any delay because the risk the contractor has assumed is not transferred to a trade that may cause that risk meaning there is nothing that holds that trade’s feet to the fire.

A liquidated damages provision is neither uncommon nor unreasonable.  It is a risk, oftentimes negotiated on private jobs but maybe not the case on public jobs, that is factored in at the onset of any project.  It is a risk that cannot be overlooked but is the risk designed to best maximize the emphasis on time is of the essence as to the substantial completion date.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

STANDARD FOR EVALUATING DELAY – DIRECTLY FROM AN ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEAL’S OPINION

Posted on by

Sometimes, it is much better to hear it from the horse’s mouth.  That is the case here.  The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal’s (ASBCA) opinion in Appeals of -GSC Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 59402, 2020 WL 8148687 (ASBCA November 4, 2020) includes an informative discussion of a contractor’s burden when it encounters excusable delay and, of importance, the standard for evaluating delay.  It’s a long discussion but one that parties in construction need to know, appreciate, and understand.  EVERY WORD IN THIS DISCUSSION MATTERS.

Construction projects get delayed and with a delay comes money because time is money.  Many claims are predicated on delay.  These can be an owner assessing liquidated damages due to a delayed job or a contractor seeking its costs for delay.  Either way, the standard for evaluating delay and the burdens imposed on a party cannot be understated and, certainly, cannot be overlooked.  For this reason, here is the discussion on evaluating delay directly from the horse’s mouth in the Appeal of-GSC Construction, Inc.:

The critical path is the longest path in the schedule on which any delay or disruption would cause a day-for-day delay to the project itself; those activities must be performed as they are scheduled and timely in order for the project to finish on time. Wilner v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 241, 245 (1991). In Yates-Desbuild Joint Venture, CBCA No. 3350 et al., 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,870, our sister board compiled an excellent and very helpful synopsis of the standards for evaluating delay claims, which I adopt nearly verbatim among the discussion that follows.

To the extent that the government that delays a contractor’s work and increases its costs, the contractor may seek compensation for its damages. Yet, the mere fact that there is some delay to some aspect of planned contract work is not enough to establish that the contractor’s ultimate contract performance costs or time increased. In evaluating the effect of government-caused delays on the contractor’s ultimate performance time and cost, tribunals generally look to the critical path of contract performance, a method of delay analysis that the United States Court of Claims explained as follows:

Essentially, the critical path method is an efficient way of organizing and scheduling a complex project which consists of numerous interrelated separate small projects. Each subproject is identified and classified as to the duration and precedence of the work. (E.g., one could not carpet an area until the flooring is down and the flooring cannot be completed until the underlying electrical and telephone conduits are installed.) The data is then analyzed, usually by computer, to determine the most efficient schedule for the entire project. Many subprojects may be performed at any time within a given period without any effect on the completion of the entire project. However, some items of work are given no leeway and must be performed on schedule; otherwise, the entire project will be delayed.

Yates-Desbuild, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36870 at 179,684-85 (quoting Haney v. United States, 676 F.2d 584, 595 (Ct. Cl. 1982)).

Where the time frame for performance of an activity, set by the earliest possible start time and the latest possible finish time, establishes a time interval equal to the expected activity duration, the activity is termed ““critical,” and no discretion or flexibility exists in the scheduling of that activity. Items of work for which there is no timing leeway are on the critical path, and a delay, or acceleration, of work along the critical path will affect the entire project. Specifically, then, to prevail on its claims for the additional costs incurred because of the late completion of a fixed-price government construction contract, a contractor must show that the government’s actions affected activities on the critical path. Typically, if work on the critical path is delayed, then the eventual completion date of the project is delayed. Conversely, a government delay that affects only those activities not on the critical path does not delay the completion of the project. As a result, the determination of the critical path is crucial to the calculation of delay damages. Id. at 179,685.

To satisfy its burden, the contractor must establish what the critical path of the project actually was and then demonstrate how excusable delays, by affecting activities on the contract’s critical path, actually impacted the contractor’s ability to finish the contract on time. This is done through an analysis to show the interdependence of any one or more of the work items with any other work items as the project progressed. One established way to document delay is through the use of contemporaneous Critical Path Method (CPM) schedules and an analysis of the effects, if any, of government-caused events. In fact, in situations where the contractor utilized Primavera scheduling software to create schedules throughout the life of the project, it would be folly to utilize some other method of critical path analysis. Id.

Because the critical path of construction can change as a project progresses, activities that were not on the original critical path subsequently may be added, and, to preclude post hoc rationalization and speculation, it is important that the contemporaneous schedules that the contractor uses to show critical path delay are updated throughout contract performance to reflect changes as they happened. Accurate, informed assessments of the effect of delays upon critical path activities are possible only if up-to-date CPM schedules are faithfully maintained throughout the course of construction. Id.

Nevertheless, the existence of contemporaneous schedules does not permit a tribunal to ignore, or fail to consider, logic errors in those schedules. A CPM schedule, even if maintained contemporaneously with events occurring during contract performance, is only as good as the logic and information upon which it is based. CPM is not a “magic wand,” and not every schedule presented will or should be automatically accepted merely because CPM technique is employed. To be a reliable basis for determining delay damages, a CPM schedule must reflect actual performance and must comport with the events actually occurring on the job. Tribunals may need to inquire into the accuracy and reliability of the data and logic underlying the CPM evaluation in appropriate circumstances and reject CPM analyses if the logic was not credible or was suspect. Id. at 179,685-86.

Even if the contractor shows delay by the government that affects the critical path, the contractor must also establish that it was not concurrently responsible for delays. Tribunals will deny recovery where the delays of the government and the contractor are concurrent and the contractor has not established its delay apart from that attributable to the government. Nevertheless, any contractor-caused delays must affect the critical path of contract performance to be considered “concurrent” — contractor delays that, absent the Government-caused delay, would have had no negative impact upon the ultimate contract completion date do not affect the government’s monetary liability. For the same reasons discussed above, because concurrent delays that do not affect the critical path of contract work do not delay project completion, an accurate critical path analysis is essential to determine whether concurrent delays have caused delay damages related to the delayed completion of a complex construction project. Id. at 179,686.

In establishing excusable delay, the contractor may point to causes outside the Government’s control. FAR 52.249-10(b)(1), Default, provides a non-exhaustive list of excusable delays that includes acts of God, acts of a host country government in its sovereign capacity, fires, floods, epidemics, strikes, and unusually severe weather. Obviously, a contractor has no control over whether it rains, whether there is a flash flood, or whether there are forest fires. Nevertheless, the mere fact that a delay is caused by a type of activity listed in the contract as generally excusable does not give the contractor carte blanche to rely upon such excuses. The purpose of the proviso, which is to protect the contractor against the unexpected, and its grammatical sense both militate against holding that the listed events are always to be regarded as unforeseeable, no matter what the attendant circumstances are. A quarantine, or freight embargo, may have been in effect for many years as a permanent policy of the controlling government and, if so, may not meet the definition of a cause “unforeseeable” at the time of contract award, even if quarantines and freight embargoes are listed in the contract as examples of possible excusable causes of delay. Id. at 179,686-87.

Further, even if an unforeseeable cause of delay occurs, the contractor cannot sit back and fail to take reasonable steps in response to it — once such an unforeseeable event occurs, the contractor affected by it has an obligation to attempt to mitigate the resulting damage to the extent that it can. If the contractor fails to do so, it may not recover those damages which could have been avoided by reasonable precautionary action on its part. Id. at 179,687.

To establish entitlement to an extension based on excusable delay, a contractor must show that the delay resulted from “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor,” and the unforeseeable cause must delay the overall contract completion; i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance. Sauer Inc. v. Danzig, 224 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Similarly, a contractor’s default is excused only to the extent that there were no additional delays for which the contractor was responsible (beyond those caused by the government) and that “there is in the proof a clear apportionment of the delay and the expense attributable to each party.” See Blinderman Constr. Co. v. United States, 695 F.2d 552, 559 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (quoting Coath & Goss, Inc., 101 Ct.Cl. 702, 714-15 (1944).

However, in order to prove that it is entitled to delay damages in the form of time or money, a contractor must prove that the government was responsible for specific delays, overall project completion was delayed as a result of the government-caused delays, and any government-caused delays were not concurrent with delays within the contractor’s control. L.C. Gaskins Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 58550 et al., 18-1 BCA ¶ 36,978 at 180,121-22. If an event that would constitute an excusable cause of delay in fact occurs, and if that event in fact delays the progress of the work as a whole, the contractor is entitled to an extension of time for so much of the ultimate delay in completion as was the result or consequence of that event, notwithstanding that the progress of the work may also have been slowed down or halted by a want of diligence, lack of planning, or some other inexcusable omission on the part of the contractor. Chas. I. Cunningham Co., IBCA No. 60, 57-2 BCA ¶ 1,541 at 5,843.

A contractor is entitled to time extensions for government-caused delays and excusable delays, even when they are concurrent with contractor-caused delay. When a contractor is seeking extensions of contract time, for changes and excusable delay, which will relieve it from the consequences of having failed to complete the work within the time allowed for performance, it has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence not only the existence of an excusable cause of delay but also the extent to which completion of the contract work as a whole was delayed thereby. The contractor must prove that the excusable event proximately caused a delay to the overall completion of the contract, i.e., that the delay affected activities on the critical path. And it must also establish the extent to which completion of the work was delayed—it is entitled to only so much time extension as the excusable cause actually delayed performance. R.P. Wallace, Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 402, 409-10 (2004).

Thornier issues are posed by concurrent or sequential delays—the first occurring where both parties are responsible for the same period of delay, the second, where one party and then the other cause different delays seriatim or intermittently. Concurrent delay is not fatal to a contractor’s claim for additional time due to excusable delay, but precludes the recovery of delay damages. If a period of delay can be attributed simultaneously to the actions of both the Government and the contractor, there are said to be concurrent delays, and the result is an excusable but not a compensable delay. A contractor generally cannot recover for concurrent delays for the simple reason that no causal link can be shown: A government act that delays part of the contract performance does not delay the general progress of the work when the prosecution of the work as a whole would have been delayed regardless of the government’s act. Id.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

DEFINING CONSTRUCTIVE ACCELERATION

Posted on by

When it comes to the definition of “constructive acceleration,” the case of Fraser Const. Co. v. U.S., 384 F.3d 1354 (Fed.Cir. 2004) is a cited case and contains an instructive definition, quoted below, for proving a constructive acceleration claim.

In a nutshell, a constructive acceleration claim is when the contractor incurs added costs for trying to complete the contract on time when it should be provided extensions of time to perform based on excusable delay (i.e., delay not caused by the contractor).  These added costs could be bringing in additional supervision to manage the work, adding manpower to perform the work, working overtime, working weekends, adding more shift work, stacking trades, etc.  However, just because a contractor claims they have been constructively accelerated does not make it so.  The contractor has to actually ask for an extension of time based on an excusable delay and the owner either denied the extension or unreasonably sat on the request for an extension of time; thus, the contractor incurred significant costs to accelerate in order to finish the project on time because it was deprived of a requested time extension for excusable delay.

If you are a contractor and need to support a constructive acceleration claim, please take note of this definition by the Fraser Construction court:

A claim of acceleration is a claim for the increased costs that result when the government requires the contractor to complete its performance in less time than was permitted under the contract. The claim arises under the changes clause of a contract; the basis for the claim is that the government has modified the contract by shortening the time for performance, either expressly (in the case of actual acceleration) or implicitly through its conduct (in the case of constructive acceleration), and that under the changes clause the   government is required to compensate the contractor for the additional costs incurred in effecting the change. 

A claim of constructive acceleration ordinarily arises when the government requires the contractor to adhere to the original performance deadline set forth in the contract even though the contract provides the contractor with periods of excusable delay that entitle the contractor to a longer performance period. Although different formulations have been used in setting forth the elements of constructive acceleration, the requirements are generally described to include the following elements, each of which must be proved by the contractor: (1) that the contractor encountered a delay that is excusable under the contract; (2) that the contractor made a timely and sufficient request for an extension of the contract schedule; (3) that the government denied the contractor’s request for an extension or failed to act on it within a reasonable time; (4) that the government insisted on completion of the contract within a period shorter than the period to which the contractor would be entitled by taking into account the period of excusable delay, after which the contractor notified the government that it regarded the alleged order to accelerate as a constructive change in the contract; and (5) that the contractor was required to expend extra resources to compensate for the lost time and remain on schedule.

Fraser Const. Co., supra, at136.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

CONTRACTOR’S BURDEN WHEN IT COMES TO DELAY

Posted on by

When a contractor is challenging the assessment of liquidated damages, or arguing that it is entitled to extended general conditions, the contractor bears a burden of proof to establish there were excusable delays that impacted the critical path and, in certain scenarios, the delays were not concurrent with contractor-caused delay:

When delays are excusable, a contractor is entitled to a time extension, such that the government may not assess liquidated damages for those delays.  The government bears the initial burden of proving that the contractor failed to meet the contract completion date, and that the period of time for which the government assessed liquidated damages was correct. If the government makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the contractor to show that its failure to timely complete the work was excusable. To show an excusable delay, a contractor must show that the delay resulted from “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.”  “In addition, the unforeseeable cause must delay the overall contract completion; i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance.” Further, the contractor must show that there was no concurrent delay.

Ken Laster Co., ASBCA No. 61292, 2020 WL 5270322 (ASBCA 2020) (internal citations omitted).

Arguing delay without understanding your burden of proof obligations will be problematic, as the contractor in Ken Laster found out.  In this dispute, a contractor was issued task orders to repair, prepare and plaint certain floating structures pursuant to task orders.  The contractor was liable for liquidated damages if it did not timely complete the work.  The contractor completed the work 289 days late and the government assessed liquidated damages.  The contractor challenged the assessment of liquidated damages. However, the contractor did NOT show how anything it claimed the government did to delay completion impacted the critical path or that there was no concurrent delay.  Without such showing, the contractor was unable to establish that liquidated damages were improper as it was unable to show there was excusable delay or that the delay to the critical path it caused was concurrent with an owner-caused delay to the critical path.

Remember, if you are a contractor challenging the assessment of liquidated damages and/or claiming you are entitled to delay damages (extended general conditions), you have a burden of proof.  You will want to establish that there was excusable delay, i.e., owner-caused delay, that impacted the critical path of the project resulting in the delay to the completion date, and the excusable delay was not concurrent with delay you caused to the completion date.  This burden will routinely require expert opinion that will need to analyze schedules and contemporaneous project documentation to render these opinions (that there was excusable delay, the delay impacted the critical path, and in certain scenarios, the excusable delay was not concurrent).   It is important to note, however, that if you are able to establish there was concurrent delay, you would still typically be entitled to a time extension, however, you would not be entitled to compensation for the delay (extended general conditions).  But, the burden is still on you to establish there was concurrent delay.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

PROVING IMPACTS TO CRITICAL PATH TO DEFEAT LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ASSESSMENT

Posted on by

When a contractor is staring down the barrel of an owner’s assessment of liquidated damages, the burden will fall on the contractor to establish that the delay was attributable to the owner and the owner’s agents.  The contractor will want to do this not only to defeat the assessment of liquidated damages, but because it will want to establish that the delay caused it to incur extended field overhead (general conditions) for which the owner is responsible.   A contractor supports its burden by proving the impacts to its critical path.  “In general, proving an allegation of government-caused delays without a means of showing the critical path is a steep prospect.”  James Talcott Construction v. U.S., 2019 WL 1040383, *8 (Fed. Cl. 2019) (unreported opinion) (finding that because contractor did NOT present a critical path analysis it could not support its claim for delay caused by the government).

Avoiding the assessment of liquidated damages means the contractor needs to support that it encountered excusable delay and it is/was entitled to an extension of time to complete the project.

An excusable delay is one due to causes that are unforeseeable, beyond the contractor’s control, and not resulting from its fault or negligence.  The delay must be to overall contract completion, meaning ‘it must affect the critical path of performance.’  If the failure is excusable, then appellant [contractor] would be entitled to time extensions and thus remission of LDs [liquidated damages].

Appeal of – Maruf Sharif Construction Co.,ASBCA No. 61802, 2019 WL 410470 (2019) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

A contractor presenting a critical path analysis allocating delay may become imperative when seeking remission of a liquidated damages assessment and, potentially, proving its own entitlement to extended general conditions.  Again, the burden falls on the contractor; therefore, not proving the impacts to the critical path and the excusable delay the contractor should be entitled to will likely result in the contractor failing to carry its burden.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS LATE – ALLOCATION OF DELAY

Posted on by

images-1The construction project is late.  Very late.  The owner is upset and notifies the contractor that it is assessing liquidated damages.   The contractor, in turn, claims that the project is late because of excusable, compensable delays and, perhaps, excusable, noncompensable delays.  This is a common and unfortunate story between an owner and contractor on any late construction project.  Now the fun begins regarding the allocation of the delay!

 

Through previous articles, I discussed that in this scenario the burden really falls on the contractor to establish that the liquidated damages were improperly assessed against it and, thus, it is entitled to additional time and/or extended general conditions as a result of excusable delays.   Naturally, this requires the contractor to develop a critical path analysis (time impact analysis) allocating the impacts / delays (and the reasons for the impacts/ delays) to the project completion date. The reason the burden really falls on the contractor is because the owner’s burden is relatively easy – the project was not complete on time pursuant to the contract and any approved changed orders. 

 

In a recent opinion, East Coast Repair & Fabrication, LLC v. U.S., 2016 WL 4224961 (E.D.Va. 2016), the court contained a very detailed and sound discussion regarding this common story between an owner and contractor.   Although this is a case involving a ship repair company overhauling and repairing a Navy  (government) vessel, the court’s discussion would apply to any late construction project and the allocation of delay to a late project.   Please take the time to read the Court’s discussion below as it lays the framework for the allocation or apportionment of delay. 

 

In the context of litigating liquidated damages assessed by the government in a construction contract, the government first must meet its initial burden of showing that “the contract performance requirements were not substantially completed by the contract completion date and that the period for which the assessment was made was proper.” Once the government has met that burden, the burden then shifts to the contractor “to show that any delays were excusable and that it should be relieved of all or part of the assessment.”

In order for the contractor to carry its burden it must “demonstrate that the excusable event caused a delay to the overall completion of the contract, i.e., that the delay affected activities on the critical path” because the contractor “is entitled to only so much time extension as the excusable cause actually delayed” completion of the contract.

***

Having considered the somewhat conflicting positions taken on this issue in prior federal cases, this Court finds that the better legal interpretation regarding the proper treatment of “sequential delays” (where one party causes a delay followed by a separate-in-time delay caused by the other), is that “apportionment” should be permitted when the evidence provides a reliable basis on which to determine which party is responsible for which delay. Stated differently, the fact that the Government was solely responsible for some delays in this case…does not preclude the Government as a matter of law from recovering some amount of liquidated damages as a result of subsequent, and conceptually distinct, delays deemed to be solely the fault of ECR/Técnico [Contractor and its subcontractor].

 

As to performance delays deemed to be “concurrent,” (both parties causing a delay at the same time), the established law reveals that ECR [Contractor] is permitted to seek an extension of the project completion date for such delay, as long as the delay caused by the Government would have disrupted the “critical path” in the absence of the delay caused by the contractor. However, while ECR may seek an extension of the performance period for a concurrent delay, ECR is precluded by law from obtaining a monetary award to compensate it for “delay damages” for such delays, with the appropriate relief being only the extension of the project completion date (which, in effect, results in a day-for-day reduction of the Government’s liquidated damages claim). 

East Coast Repair & Fabrication, supra, at *13-14 (internal quotations omitted).

 

 

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.