Evaluating a Delay and Change Order Claim
A 62,000 sf library is under a GMP contract with 240 calendar days for substantial completion and liquidated damages of $1,500 per day. The contract provides 15 non-compensable weather days before time extensions accrue. At day 200 the contractor submits Change Order 7 requesting 19 days and $61,000: 9 days and $43,200 in extended general conditions ($4,800/day) for the owner's late shelving selection, which the approved schedule shows on the critical path; 6 days for weather, with daily reports documenting 24 weather days to date; and 4 days for late steel joists, which the approved schedule shows carrying 5 days of float. The contractor's fragnet shows that 4 of the owner-caused days overlapped with weather days. The owner wants a written determination before the next pay application.
1. Determine the time extension. Show how each component is treated.
Read the worked answer
Separate entitlement, concurrency, and float before adding anything.
- Owner delay (shelving): 9 days, on the critical path, owner-caused - compensable time.
- Weather: 24 days occurred against a 15-day non-compensable allowance, so 9 days are excusable. The contractor claimed 6. Grant 6 and note in the determination that the additional 3 are available if documented, so the record is complete either way.
- Concurrency: 4 of the owner days ran parallel to weather days. A day of delay is counted once, and those 4 days would have been excusable weather delay regardless of the owner. Subtract 4.
- Joists: 4 days claimed against 5 days of float in the approved schedule. The delay never consumed the float, so no time extension. Float in the approved schedule belongs to the project, and this contractor already used it.
Time extension = 9 + 6 - 4 = 11 days. Adjusted substantial completion moves from day 240 to day 251.
2. Determine the money. How much of the $61,000 should be approved?
Read the worked answer
Money follows compensability, not excusability.
- Weather days are excusable but not compensable under this contract. The contractor bears the cost of weather, both within and beyond the allowance.
- Joist delay is neither excusable nor compensable; the contractor bears it.
- Owner days generate extended general conditions only for days that actually extended the project. The 4 concurrent days added no time and therefore no cost: 5 days x $4,800 = $24,000.
- Direct cost of the shelving change itself (blocking, patching, refeeding) is a separate, reimbursable owner-directed change at the contract rates, if it is not already inside another change order.
Of the $61,000 requested, approve $24,000; reject $37,000. Of 19 days requested, grant 11.
Write the determination as reasoning, not just a number: identify which days were credited, which were concurrent, and which were absorbed by float. A bare denial without the fragnet analysis invites a claim and gives the owner nothing to defend later.
3. The owner wants to start assessing liquidated damages on day 241. What do you advise?
Read the worked answer
Do not assess on the disputed days.
- Time is not yet fixed. LD exposure begins only after the extended substantial completion date. Deducting $1,500/day at day 241, before a written determination, is a unilateral act that invites a claim and undermines the architect's decision authority under the contract.
- Issue the determination in writing first: 11-day extension, $24,000 approved, adjusted completion day 251, with a reservation of rights on the open items - the 3 additional weather days and the shelving direct costs.
- Require a time impact analysis for the remaining work so day 251 is validated against the current schedule update, not the day-200 baseline.
- If the contractor rejects the determination, follow the dispute provisions - architect's initial decision, then mediation. Withholding from the next pay application as leverage for disputed time can itself be a breach.
- Document the LD position from day 251 forward with dated daily reports and a notice to the surety, so any future assessment is supported by a clean record rather than a retroactive calculation.