Ibbs, W; Nguyen, L D and Simonian, L (2011) Concurrent delays and apportionment of damages. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(2), pp. 119-126. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper focuses on the subject of concurrent delay from a general contractor (GC)-subcontractor perspective. When there is a concurrent delay by multiple subcontractors, or between the GC and other subcontractor(s), there has not been a uniform approach as to how the liquidated damages are apportioned. Previous research seems to ignore this issue. This paper first reviews some relevant court cases. Using a warehouse project as a case study, it then examines different practices that the GC could take in apportioning damages of concurrent delays to both himself/herself as well as to the responsible subcontractors. Results are very inconsistent between and within the apportionment practices. This supports an alternative hypothesis that apportionment is an important issue. Practitioners should specify which apportionment practice will be used and under what circumstances it will be applied in their subcontracts. Researchers may develop a more consistent and reliable approach for this type of apportionment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; contractors; contracts; court decisions; damage assessment; delay time; litigation; subcontractors |
| Index terms: | litigation, case study, damage assessment, general contractor, liquidated damages, damages, subcontract, subcontractor, practitioner |
| Subjects: | contractual remedy, structural engineering, practitioner, dispute resolution, contract type, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| 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