“Claimsmanship”: Current Perspective
This article has a reply.
VIEW THE REPLYThis article has a reply.
VIEW THE REPLYPublication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 119, Issue 3
Abstract
Owners, engineers, and contractors used to focus on designing and building projects as a team for the mutual benefit of all parties. Over the past two decades, as project complexity has increased, deadlines tightened, and profitability declined, teamwork has fallen by the wayside. The more common buzzwords current in the construction industry today are liability avoidance, risk transfer, and claims mitigation. This trend has brought into the industry a new approach to doing business: claimsmanship; i.e., what “claims games” can be played to decrease “our exposure” during construction while increasing the exposure of the other guy. This paper discusses some 11 claims games commonly practiced by contractors on public projects—some old, some new, all currently in vogue. The paper also discusses 11 claim games being used by public owners—most new and not yet thoroughly tested.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Avoiding and resolving disputes in underground construction: Successful practices and guidelines. (1987). Underground Technology Research Council/ASCE, New York, N.Y.
2.
Caspe, M. S., Igoe, J., and McDonald, S. R. (1991). “The disputes resolution clause.” Proj. Mgmt. J., 22(1), 11–16.
3.
Cowan, C. E. (1991). “A strategy for partnering in the public sector.” ASCE Constr. Congress, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
4.
Cushman, R. F., Hedemann, G. C., and Tucker, A. S., eds. (1991). Alternative dispute resolution in the construction industry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
5.
Driscoll, T. J. (1990). “Time impact analysis: A key for successful proof of delay.” Proc. 5th Annual Constr. Litigation Superconf., Construction Education and Management Corporation, San Francisco, Calif.
6.
“The effect of overtime on work output.” (1944). Bulletin 791/791A, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C.
7.
“Financial health declining.” (1991). Engrg. News‐Record, 227(22), 8.
8.
Galloway, P. D., and Nielsen, K. R. (1990). “Evaluating the contractor's right to finish early.” Annual Seminar/Symp., Project Management Institute, 412–418.
9.
Gibbs, K., and Hunt, G. (1989). California construction law. 11th Ed., Professional Education Systems, Inc., Eau Claire, Wis.
10.
“Hours of work and output.” (1947). Bulletin 917 (NTIS No. PB‐183‐133), Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C.
11.
“How much does overtime really cost?” (1968). Mgmt. Methods Bulletin No. 18A, Mech. Contractors Assoc. of Am., Washington, D.C.
12.
Johnson, D. P. (1991). “Public‐sector partnering.” ASCE Constr. Congress, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
13.
McDonald, P. R. (1987). “Loss of productivity.” Seminar on Calculation and Proof of Damages for Construction Owners and Contractors, Construction Education Management Corporation, San Francisco, Calif.
14.
Mitchell, R. S., and Ness, A. D. (1990). “Alternative dispute resolution techniques—What's happening in the real world.” Proc. 5th Annual Constr. Litigation Superconf., Construction Education Management Corporation, San Francisco, Calif.
15.
Ossman, G. (1990). “Advantages and disadvantages of full and final change orders. Proc. 1990 Nat. Conf., Construction Management Association of America, San Diego, Calif.
16.
Overtime and productivity in electrical construction. (1969). Nat. Electrical Contractors Assoc., Washington, D.C.
17.
Rice, S. M. (1991). “Pre‐award contract audits—A claim avoidance procedure.” Paper E.3, Trans., American Association of Cost Engineers.
18.
Scheduled overtime effect on construction projects. (1980). The Business Roundtable, New York, N.Y.
19.
Survey of profitability of construction contractors: Municipal and utility contractors. (1970). Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C.
20.
Survey of profitability of construction contractors: Municipal and utility contractors. (1984). Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C.
21.
Sutliff, C. D., and Zack, J. G. (1987). “Contract provisions that ensure complete cost disclosure.” Cost Engrg., 29(10), 11–14.
22.
Wickwire, J., and Driscoll, T. J. (1990). “Current issues and developments related to the use of CPM in contract claims.” Proc. 5th Annual Constr. Litigation Superconf., Construction Management Association of America, San Francisco, Calif.
23.
Wickwire, J., Driscoll, T. J., and Hurlbut, S. B. (1991). Construction scheduling: Preparation, liability, and claims. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
24.
Wickwire, J., and Smith, R. (1974). “The use of critical path method techniques in contract claims.” Public Contract Law J., 7(1), 1–45.
25.
Zack, J. G. (1985). “Early completion schedules: The newest form of contingency bidding.” Stratagem, 2(2), 8–10.
26.
Zack, J. G. (1991). “Schedule ‘Games’ People Play and Some Suggested ‘Remedies.’ “Paper K.3, Trans., American Association of Cost Engineers.
27.
Zink, D. A. (1990). “Impacts and construction inefficiency.” Cost Engrg., 32(11), 11–14.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 119 • Issue 3 • September 1993
Pages: 480 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 16, 1992
Published online: Sep 1, 1993
Published in print: Sep 1993
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.