Owners’ inefficiencies and productivity caused by owners are more difficult to document than more common delay claims, which worries that time is extended to complete a project.
Therefore, to make a claim by interruption, unlike the delay, requires convincing evidence and documentation.
This is one of the leading bids of a recently issued report by HKA, the claim consultant, the second he has published on the evaluation of the interruption.
There are numerous construction lawyers on the subject, but HKA’s report, written by the Derek Nelson partner, has the international perspective that characterizes HKA’s practice and familiarity with courts and court claims around the world.
Nelson, quoting numerous studies from the subject, identifies a dozen different methods to quantify lost productivity, with the most popular measured mile, which compares the disturbed rhythm of production with a non -indisputable rate and an obtained value, which measures progress against a schedule or a planned budget.
Nelson discusses in detail the different methods, including the system dynamics model, which was invented in the 1950’s and shows the complex and varied repercussions of changes and additions to a project. It includes the sustained use of overtime, fatigue, work errors and additional contracting that leads to competency dilutions.
The use of data from the project in question, more than general building productivity studies, is better to make a claim.
“… the approaches based on the practice of the project whose calculations are based on the records of the project,” writes Nelson, “they are expected to be more credible than alternative general approaches.” It cites a 2004 study published by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering on Lost Labor Productivity in Construction Claims.
The courts and other courts “prefer the estimates of the damage that is directly linked to the project held and supported by their contemporary documentation,” writes Nelson.
“This again highlights the importance of maintaining good records from the beginning of the project,” concludes the contractor “reliably quantifying and successfully claiming lost productivity” by demonstrating that damage is associated with a cause.
