Rain, Rock, and $2,000 a Day
Canyon Falls Constructors is 28 days past the 150-day substantial completion date on a $4.8M street and utility project. Liquidated damages are $2,000 per calendar day and the contract allows 10 weather days. Records show 16 days lost to rain and standing water; 12 days when the owner's electric utility did not release a trench segment for the water main crossing, which was on the critical path and which the owner confirmed in writing; 9 days of extra work removing 900 CY of rock in a cut the geotechnical baseline described as "suitable for trenching without rock excavation"; and 1 day of a track hoe breakdown that the superintendent logged but did not report. The owner has issued a notice of intent to assess $56,000.
1. Build the day-by-day entitlement analysis and compute the defensible liquidated damages exposure.
Read the worked answer
Reconcile every one of the 28 days to a cause, then classify each as excusable (time), compensable (time and money), or chargeable.
| Cause | Days | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| Rain/standing water | 16 (10 within allowance) → 6 beyond allowance | Excusable, non-compensable |
| Owner's utility failed to release the trench | 12 | Excusable and compensable (owner-caused, written confirmation) |
| Rock in a cut the baseline called suitable | 9 | Differing site condition - excusable, compensable if the baseline was a contract representation and notice was given |
| Track hoe breakdown | 1 | Chargeable - contractor's means and methods |
| Total | 28 |
LD exposure = 1 day × $2,000 = $2,000, not $56,000. The $54,000 difference is the time extension Canyon Falls is entitled to if it can prove criticality.
Two cautions that the owner's scheduler will raise:
- Concurrency. If any of the 6 weather days fell inside the 12-day owner-delay window, the owner will argue the contractor was already delayed and owes nothing in cost. That defeats the compensable portion of the concurrent overlap, but it does not defeat the time extension.
- Criticality. Each block of days must be tied to the critical path with a time impact analysis or fragnet, not a narrative. Nine days of rock removal that ran parallel to unaffected work earns nothing.
2. What will the owner attack in Canyon Falls' documentation, and what should the contractor have done differently?
Read the worked answer
Likely attacks:
- The rock. Whether the geotechnical baseline was a contract document or a courtesy report. If it was a courtesy report with a disclaimer, the contractor owns the risk and the 9 days become chargeable. Also: when was written notice of the differing condition given? Late notice is the owner's best defense.
- Weather days. Owners pull NOAA data and show that on four of the claimed days other crews worked. The contractor needs daily records showing the specific activity was actually stopped and why the remaining work could not proceed.
- Criticality. Without schedule updates showing the water main crossing and rock cut drove completion, the days are just assertions.
- Cost records. The compensable portion needs actual, coded cost - standby equipment rates, extended supervision, escalation. If rock removal was buried in a general labor account, the claim is unprovable.
- The breakdown. It was logged but never reported, so it will surface as an unreported chargeable day and will make the rest of the log look soft.
What should have been done: written notice within the contract's notice period for each event; daily reports signed by the superintendent and, where possible, the inspector; schedule updates at least monthly with a contemporaneous time impact analysis at each event; separate cost codes opened on day one of the rock; and a same-day report of the breakdown so it could be characterized rather than discovered.
3. During the 12-day utility delay the superintendent moved grading crews to another reach. How does that affect the claim?
Read the worked answer
It helps the schedule case and narrows the money case, and that is the correct trade.
- Time: the 12-day extension stands. The critical-path activity was stopped by a third party acting under the owner's authority, and resequencing does not create float where none existed.
- Cost: the contractor cannot claim idle crew cost for crews it kept productive. What remains compensable is the extended cost that mitigation could not eliminate - extended general conditions, supervision, equipment standby on the specific machine that had no other use, and escalation.
- Failure to mitigate would have been far worse: the owner could have argued the full 12 days and the extended costs were avoidable. Resequencing blunts that argument.
The exam point: mitigation is a duty, not a windfall loss. Document where the crews went, what they accomplished, and what cost remained unavoidable - that record is what converts a $56,000 LD notice into a $2,000 one plus a paid change order.