Ibbs, W and Nguyen, L D (2007) Alternative for quantifying field-overhead damages. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(10), pp. 736-742. ISSN 0733-9364
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; cost analysis; damage; delay time; scheduling |
| Index terms: | recovery, case study, indirect cost, window, practitioner, project party, damages, negligence, integrated approach, cost analysis, scheduling |
| Subjects: | cost management, liability law, sociology, architectural elements, contractual arrangements, financial and cost management, operations management, operations research, dispute resolution, practitioner, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Legal Issues, Time Control, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here