{"id":893243,"date":"2017-11-22T11:05:13","date_gmt":"2017-11-22T18:05:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=893243"},"modified":"2017-11-22T11:05:13","modified_gmt":"2017-11-22T18:05:13","slug":"myth-delay-revisited","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/","title":{"rendered":"A Myth About Delay \u2013 Revisited"},"content":{"rendered":"

Vernon Howerton | Texas Construction Law Blog<\/a> | November 15, 2017<\/p>\n

Construction lawyers routinely deal with delay claims. I have presented or defended more of them than I can remember.\u00a0 That is why I was curious when, earlier this year, I received a series of email invitations to presentations on the use of \u201cconcurrent delay\u201d as a defense to contractor or owner claims for delay damages on construction projects.\u00a0 I\u2019ve written about the subject in the past and wondered what, if anything, had changed.<\/p>\n

Generally, \u201cconcurrent delay\u201d refers to a situation where both the owner and the contractor cause a critical delay at the same time, either one of which would have delayed project completion standing alone.\u00a0 As originally conceived over 100\u00a0ago, a finding of concurrent delay precluded both the owner and contractor from recovering delay damages \u2013 i.e. no liquidated damages for owner and no extended performance costs for contractor.\u00a0 This was called the \u201crule against apportionment.\u201d\u00a0 The modern rule, however, allows for \u201capportionment\u201d where delays are not truly concurrent.<\/p>\n

R.P. Wallace, Inc. v. United States<\/em>, 63 Fed. Cl. 402 (2004)<\/h2>\n

This case\u00a0contains an excellent discussion of this topic. Wallace entered a contract with the Navy to, among other things, replace the windows on an historic building.\u00a0 The specifications required that the new windows have historically accurate, \u201ctrue\u201d muntins.\u00a0 The windows were also required to withstand wind loads of almost 160 mph.\u00a0\u00a0 The contract allowed 165 days for completion and specified liquidated damages of $200 per day.\u00a0 Originally, Wallace anticipated that the windows could be fabricated in six to eight weeks and installed in 28 days.\u00a0 The completion date was in 1994.<\/p>\n

After several months of searching, it became apparent that windows meeting all of the project specifications could not be had.\u00a0 No window with true muntins met the wind load requirement and vice versa, which was finally explained to Wallace by a supplier.\u00a0 According to the court, Wallace \u201cwas charged with the sisyphean task of seeking the window equivalent of a square circle\u201d (on looking up the word in my dictionary, I learned that \u201csisyphean\u201d is a reference to Sisyphus, a legendary king of Corninth, condemned to forever role a heavy rock up a hill in Hades, only to have it roll down on him as he neared the top).<\/p>\n

The Navy ultimately acknowledged that the window specifications were defective and changed them.\u00a0 It also granted a 36 day time extension, which was the length of time between the date of Wallace\u2019s first window submittal and the date Wallace obtained an approved submittal based on the revised specification.\u00a0 Wallace, however, claimed a greater impact. \u00a0Also, Wallace\u2019s problems were not done.<\/p>\n

Once the specification was changed, it took some five\u00a0months to manufacture the windows.\u00a0 Wallace claimed that the manufacturing delay was beyond its control, although Wallace made no effort to replace the supplier.\u00a0 Rather than install the windows in 28 days as planned, actual installation took 113 days.\u00a0 This was explained by the installation subcontractor\u2019s failure to adequately man the job.\u00a0 Wallace was charged with 250 days of liquidated damages ($50,000).\u00a0 Wallace sued for their return, as well as payment of extended performance costs for the period of Navy caused delay.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Findings<\/h2>\n

In evaluating Wallace\u2019s claim, the court first pointed out Wallace was entitled to recover the liquidated damages, if it could show an excusable delay beyond the time extension allowed by the Navy.\u00a0 To do so, Wallace was required to prove that an excusable event proximately caused an actual, critical delay to completion of the work<\/p>\n

Wallace claimed the Navy was not entitled to any liquidated damages, based on the \u201crule against apportionment,\u201d because the Navy caused some of the delay.\u00a0 The rule against apportionment is as follows:\u00a0 \u201cwhere delays are caused by both parties to the contract, the court will not attempt to apportion them, but will simply hold that the provisions of the contract with reference to liquidated damages will be annulled\u201d (citation omitted).\u00a0 The court then contrasted the cases applying the rule against apportionment with other cases that required apportionment or separation of government caused and contractor caused delays.\u00a0 In these latter cases, the government was allowed to recover liquidated damages for contractor caused delays, but not for owner caused delays.<\/p>\n

The court attributed the differing treatment to confusion between concurrent and sequential delays.\u00a0 Concurrent delay occurs where both parties are responsible for the same period of delay. Sequential delays occur when one party and then the other cause different delays to completion during different periods of time.\u00a0 When delays are concurrent, the result is an excusable but not compensable delay.\u00a0 However, when delays are sequential and can be segregated such that a new reference point for calculating liquidated damages can be determined (i.e. a new completion date), apportionment is required.<\/p>\n

Applying this rule, the court rejected prior cases that refused to apportion, except in the context of true, concurrent delays.\u00a0 In other words, the fact that an owner and a contractor both cause some delay to a project does not automatically invalidate the provisions of the contract related to liquidated damages (or recovery of extended performance costs).<\/p>\n

So What Happened to Wallace?<\/h2>\n

The court found that Wallace was entitled to an additional 21 day time extension for the period of time it spent looking for a manufacturer of the specified windows.\u00a0 However, because Wallace had not turned in other, critical submittals while it was being delayed, the court found that this additional Navy caused delay was concurrent with Wallace caused delay.\u00a0 Wallace was therefore entitled to time, but no money.<\/p>\n

The court also found the balance of the delay to project completion, caused by the extended manufacturing and installation periods, was Wallace\u2019s fault.\u00a0 After 10 years of litigation, Wallace was awarded $4,200, which the court correctly labeled a Pyrrhic victory (on looking up this second mythological reference, I learned that \u201cPyrrhic victory\u201d generally means victory at an excessive cost and refers to Pyrrus, a late king of Epirus, who sustained great losses in defeating the Romans).<\/p>\n

Has Anything Changed Since\u00a0Wallace<\/em>\u00a0Was Decided a Decade Ago?<\/h2>\n

Not really.\u00a0 A party asserting an excusable delay still has to prove it.\u00a0 Some jurisdictions will also require proof by a party asserting excusable or concurrent delay as a defense that the party followed any applicable notice and claim procedures contained in the Project contract documents.\u00a0 In Texas, proof of timely notice may not be required if the delay was caused by a breach such as a defective specification or failure of payment \u2013 though this approach is fraught with danger and we advise against it.<\/p>\n

What Should You Take Away From This Post, Besides Sysyphus and Pyrrrus?<\/h2>\n

The rule against apportionment is still more myth than truth.\u00a0 Except for actual, concurrent delays, it will not automatically void liquidated damage assessments when an owner causes some delay to a project.\u00a0 Prudent contractors therefore need to be prepared to document and apportion responsibility for all project delays among those actually responsible, after giving timely notice of delay and timely submission of any request for extension of the contract time.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Vernon Howerton | Texas Construction Law Blog | November 15, 2017 Construction lawyers routinely deal with delay claims. I have presented or defended more of them than I can remember.\u00a0 That is why I was curious when, earlier this year, I received a series of email invitations to presentations on the use of \u201cconcurrent delay\u201d… Continue reading A Myth About Delay \u2013 Revisited<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[172,3],"tags":[9895,9252,9831],"class_list":["post-893243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-law-2","category-insurance-claims","tag-advise-consult","tag-concurrent-delay","tag-delay-claims","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nA Myth About Delay \u2013 Revisited - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Construction lawyers routinely deal with concurrent delay claims - Has Anything Changed Since Wallace Was Decided a Decade Ago?\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A Myth About Delay \u2013 Revisited - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Construction lawyers routinely deal with concurrent delay claims - Has Anything Changed Since Wallace Was Decided a Decade Ago?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-11-22T18:05:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"A Myth About Delay \u2013 Revisited\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-11-22T18:05:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/\"},\"wordCount\":1177,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"Concurrent Delay\",\"Delay Claims\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Law\",\"Insurance Claims\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/\",\"name\":\"A Myth About Delay \u2013 Revisited - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-11-22T18:05:13+00:00\",\"description\":\"Construction lawyers routinely deal with concurrent delay claims - Has Anything Changed Since Wallace Was Decided a Decade Ago?\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A Myth About Delay \u2013 Revisited - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction lawyers routinely deal with concurrent delay claims - Has Anything Changed Since Wallace Was Decided a Decade Ago?","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A Myth About Delay \u2013 Revisited - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"Construction lawyers routinely deal with concurrent delay claims - Has Anything Changed Since Wallace Was Decided a Decade Ago?","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2017-11-22T18:05:13+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"A Myth About Delay \u2013 Revisited","datePublished":"2017-11-22T18:05:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/"},"wordCount":1177,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","Concurrent Delay","Delay Claims"],"articleSection":["Construction Law","Insurance Claims"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/","name":"A Myth About Delay \u2013 Revisited - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-11-22T18:05:13+00:00","description":"Construction lawyers routinely deal with concurrent delay claims - Has Anything Changed Since Wallace Was Decided a Decade Ago?","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/myth-delay-revisited\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3Kn9","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893243","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=893243"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893243\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":893244,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893243\/revisions\/893244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=893243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=893243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=893243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}