Charles Choyce, Forensic Schedule and Delay Analysis

Analyzing Concurrent Delay

Concurrent Delay Analysis: Part 2

By: Charles Choyce

As discussed in post 1, “Concurrent Delay Defined,” the courts have recognized the fact-specific nature in determining concurrent delay. However, the following general guideline has been established in numerous court decisions and published recommended practices where concurrent delay is an issue: For a delay to be concurrent, it must affect the critical path.[1]  Delay events that merely consume float, or slack time, on non-critical activities are not concurrent delays.

Continue reading Analyzing Concurrent Delay →

Charles Choyce, Damages, Forensic Schedule and Delay Analysis

Concurrent Delay Defined

Concurrent Delay Analysis: Part 1

By: Charles Choyce

Few topics in schedule delay analysis generate more interest than concurrent delay. This will be the first in a series of blogs on this important issue in analyzing construction delay claims. In this blog, we will discuss the general meaning of concurrent delay.

Although one case decided by the Federal Claims Court stated, “an exact definition of concurrent delay is not readily apparent,”[1] the concept of “concurrent delay” is usually understood to mean that where both parties contribute to a delay in the completion of a construction project during the same period of time, the contractor is entitled to a time extension but no compensation for the concurrent delay. By the same token, where concurrent delay is established, the owner may not withhold liquidated damages or recover delay damages for delays caused by the contractor.

Continue reading Concurrent Delay Defined →

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: