RepOne| construction expert witness
RepOne construction claims NY, prepares time-impact-analysis (TIA) for disrupted and delayed projects. As part of any effort, I work hand in hand with your team to facilitate and implement methods of accountability and record-keeping that are essential to the claim process, as well as best practices in mitigating future risks that I have learned from my years as a project manager and general contractor. Read on below to learn specifics of how I brought goal-oriented smarts to empower and facilitate the entire claim process.
RepOne construction claims NY uses Deltek Acumen Fuse for modeling and comparing various schedule updates and revisions. Fuse maintains a record of some 250 metrics for every activity in the schedule, as well as a complete historical perspective. Fuse is used by DOD, GAO, NASA, and is widely used in the gas and petrochemical industry. As such, there is no claim too large or complex for its forensic and analysis modeling.
Construction Expert, Derek Graham, is a four-decade veteran of the building industry, who spent 8 years in the field as a mechanic, and 25 as a project manager, senior scheduler, and director of operations. Graham holds a degree in British Literature. Critical insight and eloquent expert reports and testimony are the product of his unique set of talents.
Construction Claims NY Examples
Construction claims NY example I
a recent disruption/delay case
“Recently, Mr. Graham advocated for a site contractor who was misled into contracting to excavate for concrete piers and footings for a sizeable distribution facility. He was surprised to find most of the area encumbered by rubble that had been buried from three to twelve-feet deep. Due to the encumbrances, he was forced to rethink the whole project logistics and sequence of operations, and redevelop his schedule to show the delay impact. He also needed to show how to demonstrate the delay impact was a compensable delay.
This latter was my task. Because the schedule had languished, or missed updates, it was a task in forensics to go back and recreate what happened when, and to what effect, but that is what I was able to do with the help of the contractor and his attorney representing him. As I was the only one with scheduling experience, it was incumbent on me to educate the team, so they could bring their understanding and input.
Let me tell you: it was not easy to educate a busy and distracted attorney with no construction experience, but by and by, he came to understand the claim the way he needed to see it in order to couch his arguments. It was this knowledge that unlocked the whole process for him, and empower him with a fully-informed claim.
Mr. Graham has served as an expert-witness for disruption delay claims cases, as well as damages and defect litigation. He publishes regularly on the subject of CPM scheduling technology in his blog, and on LinkedIn. He has lectured at Columbia University, NY, has held seminars at Deltek Insight, 2017, and he also offers training sessions to contractors and their staff.
Construction claims NY example II
disruption Claim Case History
As the general contractor’s baseline and update scheduler of record for phase I and II of a $350M hospital, I was in the best position to generate the critical path time-impact-analysis (TIA) for any potential disruption claim. The project was the largest for all the contract members: stakeholders, construction manager, and general contractor all, thus it contained inherent risk for inexperience. Despite that notion, and the size of the investment, a risk assessment (RA) was expected; however, I was told one was not conducted.
As the project core and shell mobilized its excavations in the ‘L’ shaped base, it soon became apparent that existing pile caps were found to be in conflict with new piles. The sub-structure had to be redesigned in those areas. The requirement of a special drainage structure for a cyclotron surprised the design team, who as it turned out, had let the CDs with no major medical equipment coordination with the vendors whatsoever.
The location of an existing inconvenient steam-tunnel was the last straw. It was decided that the excavation and concrete would proceed in all sections save where the new building transitioned with the existing one. Accordingly, all of the concrete and steel sequences had to be vertically bifurcated to represent the revised staggered erection.
As time wore on, I continued to alert the contractor. We began to introduce new disrupting activities – RFIs, sketches, and change orders, and insert them into the timeline, to net a TIA. The TIA showed the critical path each month, and cause and effect relationships that were annotated in the notice of delay.
Had I not been vigilant, and coached the general contractor, they would have been feckless at every stage of the claim process, which was growing each month. Had I not carefully and properly resequenced the concrete and steel sequences, there would be no bar chart to back up the claim with. The general contractor continued to pursue his disruption claim into phase II – the Fit-out phase, for which I provided the same service. With these documents they were able to substantiate a compensable disruption claim.
Knowledge in the trades helps RepOne work with specialty contractors, like the electrician in the example, below. Graham’s four-decades experience in the trades gives him vision – both historically, and projected in completion schedules. As his clients get a working education in the claim process, they no longer act surprised that he rarely needs to visit a site to access the information he needs, because he has established a fluency in the subject that makes that superfluous. The same is true of meetings, any of which RepOne conducts via Web meetings.
Construction claims NY example III
An electrical contractor had taken over a WiFi Antennae installation, as the former electrician’s contract was terminated. The contract was to furnish the remainder of conduit, and pull and terminate signal wire from mounted antennae to receivers.
The engineering team based its tender-bid drawings on the former electrician’s as-builds, or record drawings of the locations of the conduit in the concrete slab, behind the walls, and above the ceiling. As it turned out, the engineers had never verified the as-builds – as they should do by survey, but a conflict arose when the electrician reported that a considerable quantity of conduit was never installed, or smaller pipe in lieu of a larger size.
While it was generally acknowledged that the electrician was entitled to a change order for the extra work, he had lost production time in the base contract work. In addition to the change order work, the electrician wanted reimbursement to cover his lost production. None of this was familiar ground for the electrician, and the engineer knew it, and started bullying him for a recovery schedule, with the presumption the electrician would absorb any consequential costs.
He was being pressured by the project engineers to issue a completion schedule, which is when I took on the job. As it turned out, the engineer’s drawings were no more than 20% accurate, and that the balance of the design was coming in bits and pieces, causing the contractor to continually mobilize and demobilize so to work wherever he had access.
We agreed that only upon the release of a complete conformed set of drawings was in hand could we issue a completion date. Once the RFI and return of design deliverables were in hand, they were introduced as activities into the schedule, necessarily: the longest path.
I trained the foreman how to recoup his records of production in order to calculate the deficit. I also trained the electrician’s team how to practice ‘claim awareness’ by helping them understand what documentation and records they should start keeping for all of their projects, if they want to protect themselves against absorbing production lags and general conditions overages. The table below shows some of the backup that supported the claim beyond refutation:
By relieving pressure on the electrician, and gaining trust in the engineers, I was able to get them to work together to create a critical path TIA that they could use to hedge their finish date. The electrician was compensated for his past disruptions, and was able to be submit and be compensated for subsequent disruptions on his own, without help from me. It was a bit of work out the window for me, now that the pressure was off, but sometimes that’s a pretty high compliment.