How about some more on DELAY claims and the burden of proof substantiating delay.

Delay claims can no doubt be complex – factually and legally. They warrant expert opinions further bolstered by fact witness testimony from the folks that lived the details and issues. If you need assistance with a delay claim, make sure you have the right representation to best position the claim, the arguments, and the burden of proof to substantiate the claim. Otherwise, you’ll be navigating murky waters in dealing with issues and facts that rarely will be one-sided.

Claims relating to delay can be a driving item on construction projects with back-and-forth positions / arguments and differing expert opinions. From the contractor’s perspective, to recoup time and money, the delay needs to be excusable and compensable. Below is a snippet from the Court of Federal Claims explaining the contractor’s burden in proving an excusable, compensable delay:

“[N]ot all delays are excusable, and furthermore, not all excusable delays are compensable.” Compensable delay is delay where “the government [is] the sole proximate cause of the contractor’s additional loss, and the contractor would not have been delayed for any other reason during that period.”  Sequential delay is defined as delay “where one party and then the other cause different delays seriatim or intermittently.”  “If a period of delay can be attributed simultaneously to the actions of both the [g]overnment and the contractor, there are said to be concurrent delays, and the result is an excusable but not a compensable delay.”  Plaintiff “has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence” the existence of any excusable delay, compensable or otherwise

***

A compensable delay analysis requires the Court to look at each specific instance of excusable delay plaintiff is entitled to and determine if the government is “the sole proximate cause of [plaintiff]’s additional loss, and the contractor would not have been delayed for any other reason during that period.”  Consequently, the Court cannot decide whether plaintiff is entitled to any compensable delay until it decides if plaintiff is entitled to excusable delay.  Further, the government’s blanket assertion that any excusable delay caused by weather, logs, clay, or debris was concurrent with plaintiff’s delayed start, defective equipment, project planning, and personnel management is unavailing because it does not assess each specific instance of excusable delay to which plaintiff is entitled.  (“[I]n the event of concurrent delays, the contractor ‘can attempt to prove the portion of the delay attributable to the government[ ] that was separate and apart from the contractor’s delay.’ ”). The government correctly states, and plaintiff acknowledges, plaintiff “has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence” the existence of any excusable delay, compensable or otherwise. 

Marine Industrial Construction, LLC v. U.S., 158 Fed.Cl. 158, 207 (Fed.Cl. 2022) (internal 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.