Alternative for Quantifying Field-Overhead Damages
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 133, Issue 10
Abstract
The context of delays significantly affects delay responsibility. Among other things, recoverable damages for a delay should be related to the timing of the corresponding delay and its effect on indirect costs. This paper presents an alternative and integrated approach for quantifying and apportioning delay responsibility. It considers the context of a delay in terms of its timing and the degree of suspension during the course of a project. The proposed approach allocates project-site overhead costs onto schedule activities. It then helps track site overhead damages in a “real-time” manner while schedule-window analysis is employed to analyze the delay. A case study is used to illustrate its application. Results infer that the conventional daily overhead rate-based method can cause double payments because conventional recovery possibly covers parts of field overhead already paid from the original contract. This new approach also enables the application of the comparative negligence doctrine when concurrent delays occur by fairly sharing delay damages between the project parties. Practitioners can employ the proposed approach for reasonably quantifying and apportioning delay damages while researchers may further explore its applications in the industry.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
AACEI. (2006). “Forensic schedule analysis recommended practice.” Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International, Morgantown, W.Va.
Baram, G. E. (2000). “Concurrent delays—What are they and how to deal with them?” AACE international transactions (CD-ROM, CDR.07.1–8), Morgantown, W.Va.
Finke, M. R. (1999). “Window analyses of compensable delays.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(2), 96–100.
Harris, J. W., and Ainsworth, A. (2003). “Practical analyses in proving damages.” AACE international transactions (CD-ROM, CDR.04.1–10), Morgantown, W.Va.
Hegazy, T., and Zhang, K. (2005). “Daily windows delay analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(5), 505–512.
Holland, N. L., and Hobson, D., Jr. (1999). “Indirect cost categorization and allocation by construction contractors.” J. Archit. Eng., 5(2), 49–56.
Hughes, F. J., and Ulwelling, J. K. (1992). “‘True concurrent delays’ and a proposed rule of law for apportioning damages for delay arising therefrom.”
James, D. W. (1991). “Concurrency and apportioning liability and damages in public contract adjudications.” Public Contract Law J., 20(4), 490–531.
Kasen, B. E., and Oblas, V. C. (1996). “Thinking ahead with forward pricing.” J. Manage. Eng., 12(2), 12–16.
Kelleher, T. J. (2005). Smith, Currie, and Hancock’s common sense construction law: A practical guide for the construction professional, 3rd Ed., Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
Kraiem, Z. I., and Diekmann, J. E. (1987). “Concurrent delays in construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 113(4), 591–602.
Lankenau, M. J. (2003). “Owner caused delay—Field overhead damages.” Cost Eng., 45(9), 13–17.
Love, M. K. (2000). “Theoretical delay and overhead damages.” Public Contract Law J., 30, 33–64.
Overcash, A. L., and Harris, J. W. (2005). “Measuring the contractor’s damages by ‘actual costs’—Can it be done?” Constr. Lawyer, 25(4), 31–39.
Scott, S., and Harris, R. A. (2004). “United Kingdom construction claims: Views of professionals.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 130(5), 734–741.
Strogatz, I. A. L., Taylor, W. J., and Craig, G. P. (1997). “Pricing the delay: Whom do I sue and what do I get?” Constr. Lawyer, 17(4), 4–17.
Stumpf, G. R. (2000). “Schedule delay analysis.” Cost Eng., 42(7), 32–43.
Taam, T. M. C., and Singh, A. (2003). “Unabsorbed overhead and the Eichleay formula.” J. Profl. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 129(4), 234–245.
Yates, J. K., and Epstein, A. (2006). “Avoiding and minimizing construction delay claim disputes in relational contracting.” J. Profl. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 132(2), 168–179.
Zack, J. G. (2001). “Calculation and recovery of home office overhead.” AACE international transactions (CD-ROM, CDR.02.1–6), Morgantown, W.Va.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2007 ASCE.
History
Received: Oct 5, 2006
Accepted: Feb 22, 2007
Published online: Oct 1, 2007
Published in print: Oct 2007
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.