Primary Author: James G. Zack Jr. CFCC FAACE
Venue: 2013 AACE International Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA
Abstract: When owners impose liquidated damages at the end of a delayed project contractors often respond with allegations of concurrent delay. That is, contractors argue that some or all of the project delay was actually caused either by the owner or an external force, concurrent with the contractor's delays, and therefore liquidated damages should be forgiven or excused. As owners generally do not impose liquidated damages until the end of the project, frequently a contractor's claim of concurrent delay is not submitted until the project is complete. This presentation explores mechanisms, based on recent court rulings that owners employ to defeat a contractor's "concurrent delay defense".
Venue: 2013 AACE International Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA
Abstract: When owners impose liquidated damages at the end of a delayed project contractors often respond with allegations of concurrent delay. That is, contractors argue that some or all of the project delay was actually caused either by the owner or an external force, concurrent with the contractor's delays, and therefore liquidated damages should be forgiven or excused. As owners generally do not impose liquidated damages until the end of the project, frequently a contractor's claim of concurrent delay is not submitted until the project is complete. This presentation explores mechanisms, based on recent court rulings that owners employ to defeat a contractor's "concurrent delay defense".