Concurrent Delay, Float, and a 120-Day Retail Shell
Crestline Construction is the GC on a 120-day retail shell. The baseline CPM schedule shows concrete and electrical rough-in on the critical path with zero total float; steel erection has 10 days of total float. Three events occur. First, the owner-furnished switchgear arrives 15 days late, delaying electrical rough-in by 15 days on the critical path. Second, unusually severe rain causes 10 days of lost concrete work, also on the critical path, during the same window. Third, Crestline's steel shop drawings are submitted 8 days late, but steel erection still has 2 days of float remaining afterward. At day 100, Crestline projects a 25-day overrun and requests a 25-day time extension plus $180,000 for acceleration and extended general conditions. The owner responds that the rain and switchgear delays are concurrent, that Crestline caused its own steel delay, and that no acceleration was directed. Crestline has daily reports, updated schedules, and meeting minutes but no formal time-impact analysis.
1. How should the time extension be analyzed? Identify what is excusable, compensable, and concurrent.
Read the worked answer
The time extension should be built event by event, not by subtracting day 100 from day 120. A proper time-impact analysis inserts each delay into the schedule and measures the effect on the critical path at the time of the event.
The switchgear delay is owner-caused and affects electrical rough-in on the critical path. It is excusable and compensable, so it supports both time and extended general conditions. The rain delay is excusable if the weather was unusually severe and not reasonably foreseeable, but it is generally non-compensable absent a contract provision shifting weather risk. The steel shop-drawing delay is Crestline's own risk; because steel erection retained 2 days of float, it caused no critical-path extension and should not be included in the time claim.
The hard issue is concurrency. If the switchgear and rain delays overlap in the same 15-day window and both independently affect the critical path, the owner will argue that only one period of time is excusable. That argument has force for time, but not for cost: Crestline may still recover the owner-caused portion of extended costs if it can separate the effects. Crestline should not claim 25 days as a global sum. It should show the measured critical-path impact of each event, identify any overlap, and claim time for the combined excusable period while limiting cost recovery to the owner-caused critical delay.
2. Can Crestline recover the $180,000 for acceleration and extended general conditions?
Read the worked answer
Recovery depends on causation and direction. Extended general conditions are recoverable only for delay caused by the owner or a compensable excusable event. Crestline must allocate its extended costs among the switchgear delay, the rain delay, and its own steel delay. Costs attributable to rain are generally non-compensable unless the contract says otherwise. Costs attributable to Crestline's late shop drawings are not recoverable from the owner.
Acceleration is different. A contractor can recover acceleration costs if the owner directed acceleration, or if the owner's actions constructively accelerated the work, such as refusing an justified time extension while insisting on the original completion date. Here, the facts say no acceleration was directed. Crestline must prove constructive acceleration: a excusable delay, a timely request for time, an owner refusal or failure to act, and actual added cost from speeding up. Merely projecting an overrun and spending money is not enough. If Crestline accelerated voluntarily before requesting time, recovery is weak.
Crestline should separate the $180,000 into extended general conditions and acceleration, then tie each cost to schedule windows and daily records. It should also check the contract's notice and claim procedures; a missed notice can defeat an otherwise valid claim.
3. What immediate scheduling and documentation steps should Crestline take to protect its position?
Read the worked answer
Crestline should replace the global claim with a contemporaneous time-impact analysis. For each event, it should prepare a fragnet or window analysis showing the schedule before the event, the delay inserted, and the resulting critical-path effect. The analysis should expressly address the 10 days of steel float and show that the steel delay consumed only 8 of those days and did not extend completion.
Crestline should also build a delay log tied to daily reports, weather records, delivery tickets, and meeting minutes. For the switchgear, it should document the required delivery date, actual delivery, the electrical sequence affected, and the owner's knowledge. For the rain, it should obtain National Weather Service data and show that the lost days were abnormal and not avoidable through reasonable mitigation.
Procedurally, Crestline should submit a written request for time extension now, reserving the right to supplement, and avoid signing a waiver or accepting a change order that releases delay claims. It should not accelerate further without a written direction or a clear reservation of rights. If the owner refuses a justified extension, Crestline should state in writing that it is continuing under protest and will claim constructive acceleration. Finally, it should update the schedule as planned versus actual, not revise history.