Nine Days of RFI Delay, Twelve Days of Submittal Delay, and a Crane Breakdown
Ridgeline Contractors has a 180-calendar-day contract for an $8.9 million medical office building. Liquidated damages are $1,500 per day. The contract includes a no-damages-for-delay clause and requires written notice within 10 days of any delay event. The baseline schedule shows the critical path running from foundations to structural steel to slab on deck to MEP rough-in to ceilings to finishes. Three events occur. First, the owner's engineer takes 9 days to answer an RFI on steel connections; steel detailing had 4 days of total float, so steel erection starts 5 days late. Second, the architect returns MEP shop drawings 12 days late, delaying MEP rough-in, which is critical. Third, Ridgeline's tower crane breaks down for 5 days during steel erection; the breakdown overlaps the first 5 days of the MEP rough-in delay. Ridgeline gave written notice of the RFI delay on day 5 but gave no notice of the shop-drawing delay until 30 days later and never gave notice of the crane breakdown. The project is now forecast to finish 20 days late. The owner has assessed liquidated damages for all 20 days.
1. Using the schedule facts, allocate the 20 days among excusable, compensable, and non-excusable delay. State your assumptions and explain how concurrency affects the result.
Read the worked answer
Treat the schedule, not the sum of delay days, as controlling. RFI: 9 days of owner delay, but 4 days of total float on steel detailing, so the critical-path impact is 5 days. Shop drawings: 12 days of owner delay on MEP rough-in, which is critical, so 12 days. Crane: 5 days of contractor delay on steel erection, but it overlaps the first 5 days of the MEP delay. During that overlap, the owner-caused MEP delay would have delayed completion anyway; the crane did not extend the critical path.
Supported owner-caused critical delay is therefore 17 days (5 + 12). The forecast 20 days leaves 3 days unexplained by these facts; those 3 days are non-excusable until a fragment or time-impact analysis ties them to a critical activity. If the 17 days are excusable, liquidated damages should be assessed for at most 3 days, not 20. Compensability is separate: the no-damages-for-delay clause may bar cost recovery for the 17 days unless an exception applies, such as owner bad faith, active interference, or a delay not contemplated by the clause. Concurrency does not automatically convert owner delay into contractor delay; it mainly limits the contractor's recovery of extended costs for the concurrent period.
2. What effect does the missing notice have on Ridgeline's time-extension and cost claims? Explain the difference between a notice condition precedent and a notice provision that is not a condition.
Read the worked answer
If the 10-day notice is a condition precedent, failure to give it can waive the claim entirely, even if the delay is real. The RFI notice was timely on day 5. The shop-drawing notice came 30 days after the event, so the owner will argue the 12-day claim is barred. The crane breakdown was contractor-caused, so no owner notice was required for a time extension, but it still affects the concurrency analysis.
Read the clause carefully. Language such as 'shall give notice within 10 days' may be a condition precedent if the contract also says claims are barred or invalid without it. A softer notice clause may only require notice 'as soon as practicable' and may not bar a claim absent prejudice. Ridgeline should still submit the claim, explain the late notice, and show that the owner had actual knowledge and was not prejudiced. For cost recovery, the no-damages-for-delay clause is a second barrier; identify whether the contract's exceptions apply. Notice compliance and delay entitlement are separate issues, and the contractor should not concede either one.
3. How should Ridgeline present its delay claim to the owner? Describe the schedule analysis method and the records needed.
Read the worked answer
Use a time-impact analysis or an as-built versus as-planned comparison, not a simple total-delay calendar. Build a fragment for each event, insert it into the accepted baseline schedule, and measure the change in the project completion date. Include only delays that affect the critical path, and show concurrency explicitly. Separate the 17-day owner-caused claim from the 3-day unexplained period and from the 5-day crane period.
Records needed include the baseline schedule with logic ties and float, update schedules, daily reports, RFI and submittal logs with dates, correspondence, meeting minutes, photographs, equipment maintenance records, and cost records for extended general conditions. If the owner disputes the schedule, offer a window analysis or a collapsed as-built analysis as a check. The presentation should let the owner see exactly which activity moved, by how many days, and why the contractor could not mitigate.