Bruce Jervis, Esq., Senior Editor
Construction Claims Advisor
The “as-built” schedule is a common tool in support of a contractor’s claim for compensable delay. When compared to an as-planned schedule, the as-built purports to show the impact of the other party’s decisions or shortcomings on critical path construction activities. If properly prepared, this can be compelling evidence.
The problem with as-built schedules is that few contractors maintain them as they perform the work. The as-built is prepared after-the-fact in the context of a dispute which has arisen. In order to be persuasive, the as-built must be tied to contemporaneous records and testimony from individuals with personal knowledge of activities in the field.
In a recent case, a contractor’s expert prepared an as-built schedule which was not only unsupported by such a foundation but was inconsistent with certain contractor daily reports and correspondence. Consequently, the as-built lacked credibility.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the preparation and use of as-built schedules to support, or refute, delay claims. I welcome all comments below.
(Editor's Note, Construction Claims Advisor will not be published this coming Labor Day. The case referenced in this commentary will appear in the September 14, 2009 Advisor.)
