Denise M. Motta | Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
It is inevitable that a steel fabricator will be delayed or be accused of delay on a project. There are many considerations that go into proving and defending delay claims. From a legal perspective, several issues must be addressed: (1) the type of delay; (2) proof required for delay claims; and (3) types of damages. This article addresses the legal implications of proving and defending delay claims.
Overview of Delay Claims
Delay damages may be awarded when the defendant has caused the period of performance to be extended. Delay damages can fall into any of the three general categories of contract damages: (1) expectation; (2) reliance; or (3) restitution. To prove any delay claim, expert testimony is generally necessary.
A. Elements and Types of Damages
To prove a delay claim, the delayed party must show: (1) the defendant was responsible for the delay; (2) the delays caused a delay in completion of the contract (eliminating overlapping or duplication of delays); and (3) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of those delays. Once contract time becomes impacted, the impact must be analyzed to determine:  
- Its cause;
- Whether the cause is within the “control” of either party;
- Whether the cause impacted the contract’s “critical path” for completion and; if so,
- By how much.
The party alleging delay has the burden of proof and must prove each of the elements listed above. To do so, the delay itself will need to be analyzed to establish the cause of the delay and who was responsible for the delay. Importantly, the delay must impact the critical path of the project. Further, the alleged damages must be proven by a reliable method. Each of these components requires the use of a delay expert to analyze the project schedule so as to determine whether there was a critical path delay and the responsible trade. Further, the delay expert will need to conduct a detailed analysis to prove and/or defend against alleged damages.
B. Types of Delay
There are multiple types of critical path delays. Whether a delay is compensable depends on the nature of the delay. Additionally, the contract terms will also be considered in determining whether a delay is compensable or if the delayed party is only entitled to a time extension.
1. Excusable and Compensable
In order to be compensable, a delay must be caused solely by the delaying party to qualify as compensable. However, third-party delays may be compensable as well depending on the provisions of the contract. For compensable delay, one must prove that the scheduled completion date of the project has been extended.
Courts turn their focus first to the contract language to determine the scope of excusable and compensable delays. For example, in Kiewit Power Constructors, the court determined the contract defined excusable delays to be “those resulting from circumstances beyond the reasonable control and without the fault or negligence of the [delayed] party.”
While the general rule is that there can be no recovery for concurrent delays, in some cases where multiple subcontractors or multiple prime contractors are simultaneously responsible for delay, the delayed party may still be able to recover its costs split between the responsible parties as long as the claiming party had no fault or responsibility for delay during the period claimed.
2. Excusable But Not Compensable
Excusable, but not compensable delays typically result from “third-party events, force majeure events, unusually severe weather, and owner-caused delays.” The compensability of these types of delays depends on the provisions of the contract. If the delay is outside the control of both the owner and the contractor, it could be “excusable but non-compensable.”
Courts have found that concurrent delays generally are not compensable: “[i]f a period of delay can be attributed simultaneously to the actions of both the [Owner] and the contractor, there are said to be concurrent delays, and the result is an excusable but not a compensable delay.”
3. Not Excusable
Delays are not excusable when the delay results from an act or neglect of the contractor, or its subcontractors or suppliers at any tier, or is the result of a risk assumed by the contractor pursuant to contract. Because these delays may be caused by negligence or poor performance of the contracting parties, they are controllable.
Non-excusable delays are usually rooted in at least some of the following causes: improper scheduling, ineffective site management, incorrect methods of construction, delayed performance in overall activities, and poor monitoring and control. Many commentators address this type of delay as a defense to a contractor’s claim for an extension of time, but the theories that apply also implicate the government or owner’s entitlement to assess liquidated damages.
C. Methods of Proving Delay Damages
A damage award must not be based on mere speculation, guess, or conjecture. Courts have interpreted this to mean that time impacts and resulting damages must be measured with a heightened “degree of certainty,” leading to judicial skepticism of theoretical time impact analyses and damage presentations based on unsegregated “total cost” methods. Damages must be proven by reliable expert testimony or the delayed party runs the risk of not being awarded damages.
1. Measured Mile Analysis
A measured mile analysis compares the actual labor costs or labor productivity of performing work during a time period in which the work was not impacted by the actions causing labor inefficiency to the actual labor costs or actual productivity rate for performing work during a period that was impacted by the delay. A measured mile analysis has the ability to “isolate the productivity loss during an impacted period from all other project factors via achieved progress in an un-impacted period” and is considered the preferred method of proving damages. By and large, a measured mile analysis is the most “reliable,” and therefore, preferred method.
2. Total Cost Method
The total cost method involves subtracting the contractor’s bid estimate from the total of all project cost incurred, producing a total cost attributable to the owner’s breach.
The total cost method has been applied by some courts only under exceptional circumstances and even then, only as a last resort. In those cases, courts may allow proof of damages by the total cost method when there is no other alternative method of computing damages.
3. Modified Total Cost Method
The modified total cost method is allowed only when the evidence suggests proving damages by any other means might be impracticable. To prove a modified total cost claim, the plaintiff must prove “that (1) the nature of the particular losses make it impossible or highly impracticable to determine them with a reasonable degree of accuracy; (2) the plaintiff’s bid or estimate was realistic; (3) its actual costs are reasonable; and (4) it was not responsible for the added expenses.”
If successful, the modified total cost method will result in an award of the total cost of the contract minus the bid price, with adjustments made for a contractor’s inability to satisfy the four elements, such as excluding costs associated with delays the contractor caused, or adjusting the bid price for miscalculations.
D. Common Breakdowns of Delay Damages
Damages from delay can come in various forms. Impacts include increased labor costs, increased material and equipment costs, overhead, and loss of efficiency or productivity. When asserting a delay claim, it is important to adequately track any direct costs (labor, material, or equipment) with appropriate backup when a project is delayed. Conversely, when defending a delay claim, it is crucial to ensure that damages are supported and, for loss of efficiency or productivity claims, supported by reliable expert testimony.
1. Labor Costs
Extended or additional labor costs impact nearly every party in connection with project delay. Delays to a project can force the contractor to perform work out of sequence, under different labor conditions, or at a later time. Each of these will impact the work and result in an increase in labor costs. For example, a delay that pushes work into a later period can result in stacking of trades, disruption of trades, and slower progress. If pushed to a later time, work that previously had no shortage of trained labor could face shortages or unrest as labor agreements are impacted. However, not all labor costs should be considered part of damages due to delay. Rather, the damages are for the labor actually impacted by the delayed work.
2. Material and Equipment Costs
Equipment standby damages usually “take the form of lost opportunities to rent idle equipment to others or the plaintiff’s inability to use the equipment at an earlier date on another job.” Such losses—when foreseeable—are “a natural consequence of the . . . delay, and, thus, are compensable.” Courts may award the plaintiff its lost profits and unavoidable costs (namely, its equipment leasing costs). The court will examine the damages to place the plaintiff in the position it “would have occupied had [the delaying party] performed the contract.”
3. Direct and Indirect Overhead
“Unabsorbed overhead” may be recoverable as part of delay damages. “[I]f the delay prevented the contractor from obtaining contracts during the delay period that would have ‘absorbed’ the ongoing overhead expenses,” the unabsorbed overhead is recoverable.
4. Loss of Efficiency/Productivity Claims
In construction delay claims, disruption can be compensable when it results in: (i) a “loss of productivity; (ii) caused by a change in working conditions; (iii) for which the owner is responsible.” Whether a contractor is entitled to recover the increased costs of disruption “depends on the nature of the disruption, the cause of the loss of productivity, and on the terms of its contract as may be interpreted in the light of industry practice.” Of particular note, timing factors are common causes affecting project productivity and efficiency. For example, acceleration, out-of-sequence work, schedule compression, and simultaneous operations.
Disruption is a separate and distinct phenomenon from delay. Federal courts have noted that “[t]here is a distinction in the law between a delay claim and a disruption or cumulative impact claim. Although the two claim types often arise together in the same project, a delay claim involves the time and cost of not being able to work, while a disruption claim involves the cost of working less efficiently than planned.” Indeed, in order to “succeed on a disruption [or loss of productivity claim]” a claimant “need not establish delay to overall contract completion.”
Finally, courts have articulated that a high level of proof is required to prove loss of productivity or efficiency. Mere assertions of delay or changes in a project fail to constitute adequate proof. A party asserting loss of productivity must firmly establish the elements of liability and causation, or that disruptions or inefficiencies on the project were caused solely by the alleged project delays or changes.
Courts generally require the testimony of a properly qualified expert witness to prove the amount or impact of lost productivity. In Luria Brothers & Co. v. United States, the court stated:
It is a rare case where loss of productivity can be proven by books and records; almost always it has to be proven by the opinions of expert witnesses. However, the mere expression of an estimate as to the amount of productivity loss by an expert witness with nothing to support it will not establish the fundamental fact of resultant injury nor provide a sufficient basis for making a reasonably correct approximation of damages.
Indeed, the failure to use an expert has resulted in many courts finding the claimant unable to meet the required burden to prove inefficiency.
Practical tips to consider when met with delays include: (1) conducting a critical path delay analysis to determine the party responsible for the delay; (2) retaining a delay expert to consult regarding schedule issues; (3) being mindful of deadlines set forth in the contract for requesting change orders, including requests for time extensions; (4) requesting a time extension when impacted by delays; (5) including additional days for completion of change orders in each change order; (6) tracking all labor, material, and equipment expenses with a separate job cost code; and (7) keeping supporting backup for all expenses organized by expense.
Unfortunately, delays on construction projects are commonplace. If it has not happened yet, it is only a matter of time until a steel fabricator will incur substantial damages due to delay or be accused of delays alleging millions of dollars in damages. Understanding delay claims and proactively monitoring the project schedule, as well as enlisting legal counsel and delay experts early in the process will assist in development of proof to prove or defend delay claims.
 See Colorado Environments, Inc. v. Valley Grading Corp., 779 P.2d 80, 84 (Nev. 1989) (citing Zook Bros. Constr. Co. v. State, 556 P.2d 911 (Mont. 1976)).
 See Dynalectric Co. of Nevada, Inc. v. Clark & Sullivan Constructors, Inc., 255 P.3d 286, 289 (Nev. 2011).
 See Plato General Const. Corp./EMCO Tech Const. Corp. v. Dormitory Authority of State, 89 A.D.3d 819, 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011).
 See Philip L. Bruner & Patrick J. O’Connor, Jr., Bruner & O’Connor on Construction Law, § 15:29 (Thomson Reuters, 2018) [hereinafter Bruner & O’Connor].
 See Haney v. U. S., 230 Ct. Cl. 148, 168 (1982) (“[S]ome items of work are given no leeway and must be performed on schedule; otherwise the entire project will be delayed. These latter items of work are on the “critical path.” A delay or acceleration of work along the critical path will affect the entire project.”); Appeal of Southwest Marine, Inc., A.S.B.C.A. No. 36854, 95-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 27601, 1995 WL 139424 (Armed Serv. B.C.A. 1995) (“The critical path is crucial to the calculation of delay damages because only work on the critical path has an impact upon the time [in] which the project was completed; the Government delay must have interfered with the project’s critical path.”); see also Safeco Ins. Co. Of America v. Cty. Of San Bernardino, 347 Fed. Appx. 315, 318 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing treatise and opining that because the owner “has not shown that any of the insignificant delays [the contractor] caused were on the project’s critical path . . . whatever delays [the contractor’s] improper actions caused do not impact the amount of delay damages”); see also Cty. of Galveston v. Triple B Services, LLP, 498 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. App. 2016) (citing treatise regarding the distinction between “delay” damages and “disruption” damages, and concluding that both types of damages fell within the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity and thus were recoverable).
 See Robert M. D’Onofrio et al., ASCE Standard 67-17, Schedule Delay Analysis, 4.7 [hereinafter Schedule Delay Analysis].
 Kiewit Power Constructors Co. v. City of Los Angeles by and through Dep’t of Water and Power, No. CV 16-02590-AB, 2018 WL 5880919, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2018).
 JMR Constr. Corp. v. Envtl. Assessment & Remediation Mgmt., Inc., 198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 47, 60 (2015) (citing William F. Klingensmith, Inc. v. U.S., 731 F.2d 805, 809 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“contractor generally denied recovery for government-caused delays where there are concurrent delays and absent ‘proof a clear apportionment of the delay and expense attributable to each’.”).
 See Schedule Delay Analysis, supra note 6, at 4.5.
 Morganti Nat., Inc. v. U.S., 49 Fed. Cl. 110, 132 (2001); see, e.g., R.P. Wallace Inc. v. U.S., 63 Fed. Cl. 402 (2004).
 See, e.g., Appeal of Kirk Bros. Mechanical Contractors, Inc., A.S.B.C.A. No. 43738, 93-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 25325, 26188, 1992 WL 197581 (Armed Serv. B.C.A. 1992) (“Where the delay is caused solely by the Government, it is compensable; where the delay is caused solely by the [contractor], [the contractor] is responsible . . . Where the delay is prompted by inextricably intertwined concurrent Government and contractor causes, the delay is not compensable.”); Andrew D. Ness, Delay, Suspension of Work, and Acceleration, in Federal Government Construction Contracts 413, 424–27 (Bastianelli et al. eds., 2003).
 Nev. Rev., Causes of Non-Excusable Delays in Construction and Remedies, (May 2020), https://thenevadaview.com/non-excusable-delays-in-construction/.
 See W. Stephen Dale & Robert M. D’Onofrio, Construction Schedule Delays § 1:4 (Thomson Reuters, 2018) [hereinafter Construction Schedule Delays].
 Appeal of Dawson Const. Co., Inc., V.A.B.C.A. No. 3306, V.A.B.C.A. No. 3307, V.A.B.C.A. No. 3308, V.A.B.C.A. No. 3309, V.A.B.C.A. No. 3310, 93-3 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 26177, 1993 WL 243270 (Veterans Admin. B.C.A. 1993), aff’d, 34 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Dawson Const. Co., Inc. v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding contractor bears the burden of proof and broad generalities of government delay are insufficient). See also Fire Security Systems, Inc. v. General Services Admin., G.S.B.C.A. No. 12120, G.S.B.C.A. No. 12163, G.S.B.C.A. No. 12175, G.S.B.C.A. No. 12349, G.S.B.C.A. No. 12351, G.S.B.C.A. No. 12403, G.S.B.C.A. No. 12406, 97-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 28994, 1997 WL 251389 (Gen. Services Admin. B.C.A. 1997), on reconsideration, G.S.B.C.A. No. 12403-R, 97-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 29186, 1997 WL 473205 (Gen. Services Admin. B.C.A. 1997) (contractor’s base allegation that liquidated damage rate imposed by government was unreasonable did not shift the burden to the government to prove its reasonableness). See also Patrick M. Kelly & William E. Franczek, Clearing the Smoke: Forensic Scheduled Analysis Method Selection for Construction Attorneys, 33 Construction L. 30 (2013).
 Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Firem’s Fund Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1999) (discussing burden of proof in the context to a challenge in jury instructions and finding harmless error as contractor bore the burden of not simply showing excusable delay so as to avoid a default termination, but also that such delay delayed the overall completion of the job, i.e., was to the critical path).
 See Construction Schedule Delays, supra note 14, at § 19:1.
 Construction Schedule Delays, supra note 14, at § 19:1.
 Rubin, The Total Cost Method of Computing an Equitable Adjustment – An Analysis, 26 Fed. B.J. 303 (1966) (stating the total cost method is “generally disfavored.”); see Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks, 38 P.3d 1120, 1130 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Servidone Constr. Corp. v. U.S., 931 F.2d 860, 861 (1991) (“A trial court must use the total cost method with caution and as a last resort.”)); Ames Constr., Inc. v. Clark Cty., No. 2:18-cv-00299-JCM-EJY, 2020 WL 3488736, at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2020) (citing Elte, Inc. v. S.S. Mullen, Inc., 469 F.2d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 1972); Raytheon Co. v. White, 305 F.3d 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Youngdale & Sons Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S., 27 Fed. Cl. 516, 541 (1993) (“Use of [the total cost] method is highly disfavored by the courts, because it blandly assumes…that every penny of the plaintiff’s costs are prima facie reasonable, that the bid was accurately and reasonably comp[uted], and that the plaintiff is not responsible for any increases in cost.”) (emphasis added).
 New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State, 696 P.2d 185, 203 (Ariz. 1985); AMEC Civil, LLC v. DMJM Harris, Inc., No. 06–64 (FLW), 2009 WL 1883985, at *7 (D.N.J. June 30, 2009) (citing North Star Alaska Hous. Corp. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 158, 213 (2007) (“The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court of Federal Claims have emphasized that ‘the preferred way for a contractor to prove increased costs is to submit actual cost data because such data provides the court, or contracting officer, with documented underlying expenses, ensuring that the final amount of the equitable adjustment will be just that–equitable–and not a windfall for either the government or the contractor.”)); but see Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States, 685 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (allowing total-cost allocation method when contractor “used an internal accounting system which coded costs to specific projects, the allocation rates were re-examined on a regular basis in order to reflect actual capital project costs, and the total-cost allocation method complied with required FERC accounting regulations.”).
 Boyajian v. United States, 423 F.2d 1231 (Ct. Cl. 1970).
 See Ames Constr., 2020 WL 3488736 at *4 (The way for a claimant to demonstrate this is by using a four-part test “to offset the methodology’s deficiencies.”). See Insulation Contracting & Supply, Inc., 131 Nev. 1302 (2015).
 Raytheon Co., 305 F.3d at 1365.
 See Propellex Corp. v. Brownlee, 342 F.3d 1335, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Boyajian, 423 F.2d at 1240.
 Colorado Environments, Inc. v. Valley Grading Corp., 779 P.2d 80, 84 (Nev. 1989) (citing L.L. Hall Constr. Co. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 870 (1966)).
 See id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347(b)).
 Yacht West, Ltd. v. Christensen Shipyards, Ltd., 464 Fed. Appx. 626, 629 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Golf Landscaping, Inc. v. Century Constr. Co., a Div. of Orvco, Inc., 39 696 P.2d 590 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984)).
 Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 180, 198 (1965).
 Construction Schedule Delays, supra note 14, at § 18:2.
 See, e.g., Appeal of George A. Fuller Company, E.N.G.B.C.A. No. 1957, 1962 WL 225 (Corps Eng’rs B.C.A. 1962) (“The speed-up of the work was accomplished by adding workmen to the force and by increasing the hours of work per day and the days of work per week. When men work longer daily hours and weekends, much beyond the normal, their efficiency is impaired resulting in less production for a given number of man hours of work.”). See also Angelo Iafrate Constr. Co. v. Commw. of Pa., No. 3654, 2006 WL 2585021, at *23 (Pa. Bd. Claims June 13, 2006) (“Iafrate’s work productivity was adversely affected by Iafrate’s agreement to accelerate the completion of Phase II which caused the stacking of activities, working areas being over-crowded because multiple tasks were being performed out of sequence and because there was present extra workers and equipment, and the inability to move equipment, manpower and materials efficiently within the work zone.”); Tony Depaul & Son, No. 1452, 1993 WL 764322, at *18 (Pa. Bd. Cl. Oct. 28, 1993) (“Acceleration of work, including out of sequence work, start and stop operations, stacking of trades, simultaneous operations, additional manpower and equipment and additional work, causes a loss of efficiency and productivity in a contractor’s work efforts. Working in winter weather conditions, including rain, cold and freezing conditions, also causes a loss of efficiency and productivity in work efforts.”).
 See, e.g., Appeal of DANAC, Inc., A.S.B.C.A. No. 33394, 97-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 29184, 1997 WL 484579 (Armed Serv. B.C.A. 1997), on reconsideration, A.S.B.C.A. No. 33394, 98-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 29454, 1997 WL 763050 (Armed Serv. B.C.A. 1997), dismissed, 168 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“We have long recognized that lost efficiency caused by a disruption of a contractor’s planned sequence of work may be compensable.”). See also Southern Comfort Builders, Inc. v. U.S., 67 Fed. Cl. 124, 145 (2005) (stating out of sequence work allegedly caused by waiting for RFI’s caused loss of productivity but was contractor’s responsibility for failure to prepare coordination drawings); Appeal of Parsons of California, A.S.B.C.A. No. 20867, 82-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 15659, 77418, 1982 WL 7041 (Armed Serv. B.C.A. 1982) (out of sequence of work in construction contract caused by drawing defects); Central Ceilings, Inc. v. Suffolk Const. Co., Inc., 2013 WL 8721044 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2013), aff’d 91 Mass. App. Ct. 231 (2017) (where prime required a sub “to constantly de-mobilize, re-mobilize, and alter the natural sequence of its work under the Subcontract” found loss of productivity). But see Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Pike Co., Inc., No. 3:11–cv–01449, 2015 WL 3453348, at *20 (D. Conn. May 29, 2015) (agreeing that “just because work moves to a different area, a different time frame, doesn’t mean that it’s going to be less productive, [that] the contract was going to be automatically incurring loss of productivity. It means you’re doing it at a different time frame.”).
 See, e.g., Central Ceilings, Inc., 75 N.E.3d 40.
 See, e.g., Tony Depaul & Son, 1993 WL 764322 at *18 (“Acceleration of work, including out of sequence work, start and stop operations, stacking of trades, simultaneous operations, additional manpower and equipment and additional work, causes a loss of efficiency and productivity in a contractor’s work efforts. Working in winter weather conditions, including rain, cold and freezing conditions, also causes a loss of efficiency and productivity in work efforts.”).
 Construction Schedule Delays, supra note 14, at § 18:3.
 Bell BCI Co. v. U.S., 72 Fed. Cl. 164, 168 (2006).
 Sauer Inc. v. Danzig, 224 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
 Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. George Hyman Const. Co., 155 F.R.D. 113, 115 (1994) (citing various adjudications as to loss of productivity claims).
 Id. (citing Southwest Marine, Inc., DOTBCA No. 1663, 94-3 B.C.A. (CCH) P27, 102 (1994)).
 Id. (citing Dawson Constr. Co., VABCA No. 3306-3310, 93-3 B.C.A. (CCH) 026, 177, aff’d 34 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
 Luria Bros. & Co., Inc. v. U.S., 177 Ct. Cl. 676, 696 (1966) (emphasis added).
 See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Salinas Constr., Inc. v. W. Sur. Co., No. C14-1963JLR, 2016 WL 3632487 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2016) (vacating a jury verdict award because damages for inefficiency require expert testimony not lay testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702); Norment Sec. Group, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2003-Ohio-6572, 2003 WL 22890088 (Ohio Ct. Cl. Dec. 2, 2003) (holding expert testimony not provided and inefficiency claim failed for lack of proof); Appeal of Dawson Const. Co., Inc., V.A.B.C.A. No. 3306, V.A.B.C.A. No. 3307, V.A.B.C.A. No. 3308, V.A.B.C.A. No. 3309, V.A.B.C.A. No. 3310, 93-3 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 26177, 1993 WL 243270 (Veterans Admin. B.C.A. 1993), aff’d, 34 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (ruling project manager’s testimony of inefficiency percentage insufficient to prove inefficiency); Havens Steel Co. v. Randolph Engineering Co., 613 F. Supp. 514, 540 (W.D. Mo. 1985), (finding that the court did not accept witness as a loss of productivity expert for lack of training or expertise); Appeal of Preston–Brady Co., Inc., V.A.B.C.A. No. 1892, V.A.B.C.A. No. 1991, V.A.B.C.A. No. 2555, 87-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 19649, at 99,520, 1987 WL 41248 (Veterans Admin. B.C.A. 1987), clarified on denial of reconsideration, V.A.B.C.A. No. 1892, V.A.B.C.A. No. 1991, V.A.B.C.A. No. 2555, 87-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 19925, 1987 WL 46592 (Veterans Admin. B.C.A. 1987) (“A general statement that disruption or impact occurred, absent any showing through use of updated CPM schedules, logs or credible and specific data or testimony, will not suffice to meet that burden.”).