Who’s Fault?

You may wish to read ’Effects of Accelerated Working, Delays and Disruption on Labour Productivity’. Horner, R M W & Talhouni B (1996), Chartered Institute of Building , Ascot.



Amazon don’t seem to have it but you could try

http://www.apoogee.com/Constructionbooksdirect/merchant.mv?Screeen=PROD…



I think this may be a good read for all those ’experts’ out there (something more than opinion?) which could help to illustrate how weak claims that are based on labour resources, and hence estimated productivity rates, really are.



Most projects, in my experience, these days are planned using operation orientated scheduling, not resource orientated. Of course, those who are no longer practising still tend to believe that everything is purely based on X operatives, working at Y productivity resulting in Z duration.

I have come across numerous claims like this. One technique to consider is the measured mile. If you can prove that during an unimpacted period you used a certain amount of labour and during an impacted period you utilised increased resources the difference can be attributed to disruption.



I work in the construction disputes division of PricewaterhouseCoopers and deal with this type of issue regularly - e.mail me if you want more information.

Hi,



If I was the contractor:



1-for every day delay during to the late access of some parts of the Project , I should take a signed paper from the Consultant, that my Crew was stopped because of the late access,and I have to take another more day instead of this day off for my Crew(it mean the project should be extended by more days according to how many days the work was stopped).



2-if the contractor was successful in doing step number 1, then the xxx+40% mandays is already approved from the client or the consultant,and no one has the right to argue since the 40% was approved in advance.



3-a new benchmarks, or a recovery plan can,t be created ulness there is a delay from the contractor him self and he need to recover this delay.



4-a 40% mandyas more than the xxx,if it is withen the high side of the approved histogram,the client should not approve a day by day delay from the begning.,but once the client approve it then he has no right do change or deviat.



-------------

Resource planned histogram is just a basic view of what the human resources should be on a porject. It can not be used as a base for resource over run claims. Your contractor has to proof such over run by timesheets, actual qauntities vis actual work durations (this will indicate required human resources based on production rates) etc.

Firstly, you need to evaluate the feasibility of your programme with the resources assigned. Were the man hours sufficient to do the job ? This may require expert opinion.



This is what I do !



Then you need to demonstrate Cause and Effect.

Late access (the cause) usually results in delay and/or acceleration (the effect). Therefore what has probably happened here is the planned production was not achieved due to disruption, and so the man hour required effort increased.



This could be due to many things, such as - out of sequence working, congested working, changed methods, overlapped trades, etc. As a forensic planner this is what I specialise in !

Like a previous respons already mentioned the plan was apporved at the start of the job which is the basis for comparing the manpower. Late start of the works, thus having less time to complete the job is not an manpower increasing issue (the same amount of work in less time = only a higher manpower but not necessarily more manhours), nevertheless other issues could have increased your manhours spent, such as :



1) because of the delay the quality of available personel reduced, so more people were needed

2) the risc of delays were higher, in order to reduce the risk more manpower was needed

3) due to less time more work had to be done parralell in stead of subsequently, so more manpower was needed (less efficient) last could be a strong reason.



I hope to have given you sufficient info, but could think of additional points, so e-mail if required. Succes, Ed

Well, I am not a claims expert but I would like to express my opinion.



First, you need to demonstrate that the approved plan corresponds to the approved cost estimate (the way you planned to do the job costs that much). This way you are defining the "intent" of the contractor.



Now, if the owner prevents the contractor from executing the plan according to the original intention, then we have two courses of action: either execute the job with a delayed schedule or increase resources and meet the original deadline. Either course will probably cost more money to the contractor. If the contractor can demonstrate this increase in cost then he has a legitimate claim.

It does not matter whether somebody says the approved plan was on the low side, since it was already approved that way and also it corresponds to the approved cost estimate.



Probably the contractor was the selected bidder because his estimate was a low one. And it could very well be that this low estimate was due to the low resource allocation.



If you can show all of the above, to me you have a case.

You have to demonstrate a clear link between the recovery measures that were required and the additional labour resources that were expended.



A global claim comparing the difference between planned and actual resources will fail for many reasons, including the fact that it masks the contractor’s planning and operational shortcomings.