Lost productivity can be the result of delays, acceleration or changes to the work. As with any claim for increased cost, proof of causation and proof of costs are both necessary. This report examines both. Experts in the field of construction productivity and claims provide a comprehensive view of the subject, discussing quantitative and qualitative aspects of proof and causations, methods of calculating costs with useful tips and techniques to minimize productivity losses and to assure maximum recovery in the event of a claims situation. Select court and board decisions provide a realistic backdrop of how the industry has arrived at the accepted approaches commonly in use today.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part 1 – Causation
1. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF CHANGE ON CONSTRUCTION LABOR
PRODUCTIVITY
2. CAUSATION AND CAUSE-EFFECT ANALYSES
3. CONSTRUCTION LEARNING CURVES: FACTUAL OR IMAGINED?
4. THREE BOARDS OF CONTRACT APPEALS DECISIONS
a. Labor Inefficiency Analysis Rejected Due to Methodology [Appeal of AEI Pacific, Inc.]
b. Lost Production Efficiency Not Shown by Government Delay [Appeal of Fox Construction, Inc. ]
c. Contractor Uses “Measured Mile” Approach to Support and Quantify Site Condition Claim [Appeal of Bay West, Inc.]
Part 2 – Quantification
5. USING PRODUCTIVE TIME TO CALCULATE LABOR INEFFICIENCIES
6. USING INDUSTRY AVERAGE CURVES TO CALCULATE LABOR INEFFICIENCIES
7. RESULTANT INJURY AND THE MEASURED MILE
8. THE BASELINE ANALYSIS
9. FOUR COURT DECISIONS ON QUANTIFICATION OF PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES
a. Contractor Recovers Acceleration Costs Using “Measured Mile” Method [James Corporation v. North Allegheny School District]
b. Court Allows “Measured Mile” and “Total Cost” Methodologies [Alstom Power, Inc. v. RMF Industrial Contracting, Inc.]
c. Lost Efficiency Calculated Against Planned Rate of Production [State of Texas v. Mid-South Pavers, Inc.]
d. Court Upholds Submissable Claims For Breach of Contract and Loss of Productivity [Gill Construction, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v. 18th & Vine Authority, Respondent Appellant, City of Kansas City, Missouri, Respondent]
Part 3 – Best Practices in Proving Impact Claims
10. BEST PRACTICES IN PROVING IMPACT CLAIMS AND SUBSTANTIATING
PRODUCTIVITY LOSES
a. Proving Impact Claims
b. Proving Delay Damage and Impact Claims
c. Impact Claims: The Documentation Process
d. A Preventative Approach to Impact Claims\
Part 4 – AACE Recommended Practice No. 25R-03
11. ESTIMATING LOST LABOR PRODUCTIVITY IN CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS
PDF File; A WPL Publishing Co., Inc. publication.
ISBN: 978-0-9801135-1-8
Copyright © April 2012
