Whether an owner, a design professional, a construction manager or a contractor, all construction professionals must learn how to analyze, prepare and justify time extension requests. Owners and their representatives are tasked with the responsibility of receiving, analyzing and recommending a course of action and deciding on all time extension requests submitted by contractors. Contractors and CM’s Risk are required to analyze, prepare, justify and submit time extension requests on their own behalf and/or on behalf of their subcontractors. This presentation identifies the tests that have been set forth by the U.S. Federal Courts to justify both excusable and compensable delay time extension requests. The presentation discusses how these rules are applied, whether submitting or analyzing a time extension request. The presentation also discusses the rules concerning concurrent delay and how the courts hold the claimant responsible for allocating concurrent delay. Finally, the presentation highlights two new court rulings which may be “game changers” concerning delays, time extension requests and the use of concurrent delay as a defense against liquidated damages.
Session Highlights:
-
Learn the rules concerning time extension requests
-
Understand the arguments about waiver and apportionment of liquidated damages
-
Become knowledgeable about concurrent delay issues and who has to prove concurrent delay
-
Understand when an owner’s liability for delay is limited or obviated
-
Become more knowledgeable about the use of CPM schedules when pursuing or defending against time extension requests
-
Learn some new rules about when concurrent delay can and cannot
Why should you attend?
-
In this webinar, you’ll learn when an owner may owe compensable delay and under what circumstances
-
You’ll also learn the rules concerning who has the burden of proof concerning delay and what must be proven in order to justify time extensions - both excusable and compensable
-
This webinar will also reveal several common misconceptions concerning current delay and who has the burden of proof concerning concurrent delay.
-
The webinar will discuss when a contractor is not required to justify field and home office overhead costs once a compensable delay have been proven
-
Finally, this webinar will discuss two recent court cases, one Federal and the other State, which may change the rules of the game concerning the use of concurrent delay as a defense against owner imposed liquidated damages
Who should attend?
You may ask your Question directly to our expert during the Q&A session.
** You can buy On-Demand and view it at your convenience.
James G. Zack
James is the Senior Advisor to the Navigant Construction Forum™. The Forum strives to be the construction industry’s resource for thought leadership and best practices on avoidance and resolution of construction project disputes globally. Formerly, he was the Executive Director, Corporate Claims Management Group, Fluor Corporation, one of the world’s largest EPCM contractors.
James was previously Vice President of Pinnacle One and the Executive Director of the Pinnacle One Institute and a Senior Construction Claims Consultant for CH2M HILL, Inc. Jim has, for more than 45 years, worked on both private and public projects throughout the United States and in 28 countries abroad. James is a Fellow of AACE, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and the International Guild of Project Controls. In the construction claims field, he is a recognized and published expert in mitigation, analysis and resolution or defense of construction claims and disputes. James is a Certified Construction Manager (CCM), a Certified Forensic Claims Consultant (CFCC) and a Project Management Professional (PMP).