Construction Schedules: Analysis, Evaluation, and Interpretation of Schedules in Litigation and Dispute Resolution - Fifth Edition - 2021 Cumulative Supplement - PDF
Michael T. Callahan is President of CCL Construction Consultants, Inc. He maintains an active international consulting practice in the measurement and responsibility of delay, along with the quantification of additional performance costs and other construction and design-related matters. He earned a B.A. from the University of Kansas and both a J.D. and L.L.M. from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Mr. Callahan has written or edited Termination of Construction and Design Contracts; Procurement of Design and Construction Contracts; Construction Change Order Claims—2nd Edition; and, is the co-author of Construction Delays Claim. He also prepares a monthly newsletter summarizing current design and construction case decisions for Construction Law Digest. Mr. Callahan was an adjunct professor at the University of Kansas and has lectured throughout the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Far East on design and construction-related topics. He is a member of the Kansas, New Jersey, and Missouri bars by examination. Mr. Callahan is also a frequent arbitrator, negotiator, mediator, and a regional advisor to the American Arbitration Association.
H. Murray Hohns, PE, Fellow ASCE, was a Construction Consultant, Mediator and Arbitrator in private practice. He began to work out of Honolulu in 1987 and his specialty was construction delay, those responsible, and its consequences. Mr. Hohns founded Wagner-Hohns-Inglis-Inc. in 1965 and built it into one of the country’s 250 largest Consulting Engineers. He had two degrees in Civil Engineering and an MA in theology. He wrote or contributed to eight books on dispute resolution, worked on projects in all 50 states and overseas, and managed major construction projects for their owners. Mr. Hohns also wrote a monthly expert commentary for a compilation of reported construction cases for over seven years. He was former President of the Project Management Institute, the National Academy of Forensic Engineers, a member of the Board of Directors for the American Arbitration Association and a thirteen-year member of the national investment committee for a major religious denomination.
This is the 2021 cumulative supplement to Construction Schedules: Analysis, Evaluation and Interpretation of Schedules in Litigation and Dispute Resolution - Fifth Edition.
Construction Schedules, Fifth Edition, is a comprehensive source for planning a claim presentation or a defense. This publication is an eminently practical reference source, providing both case reviews and citations. The 2021 supplement includes updates to chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 including the following:
- Chapter 3
In Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. McCarthy Improvement Co., the court had found that the contractor had known that the subcontractor had not delayed the project because the CPM schedules submitted to the project owner had showed the delays were due to weather, change orders, and the Design-Build contractor’s work.
- Chapter 5
The court in 99 Wall Development Inc. v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Co., ruled that an insurance policy covered the delaying event regardless of any concurrent contractor-caused delay.
- Chapter 6
A CPM Schedule that is manipulated to fraudulently show progress that has not been achieved may also constitute a “criminal” act. In Moshell v. Sasol Ltd., the court found that fraudulent misrepresentation of progress in a construction schedule could violate the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The absence of a schedule may also be accepted as evidence. In J. Caldarera & Co. v. Ernest N. Morial Exhibition Hall Authority, the court found that the plaintiff disappointed bidder's bid did not comply with the instructions to bidders. The disappointed bidder had not submitted the preliminary project schedule and preliminary traffic plans by 14 days after the bid opening as required by the bidding documents.
- Chapter 7
RKI Construction, LLC v. WDF Inc. demonstrates the disadvantage pull-planning or variations of pull-planning impose on the need to measure a delay for time extensions or performance evaluations, even when a critical path schedule had been prepared for the project.
In Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. McCarthy Improvement Co., the design-build contractor's CPM schedules had not met the accepted standard for construction schedules. The court held that the time in which a subcontractor was to complete its work was a reasonable time instead of the time required by the subcontract.
The fifth edition of Construction Schedules examines the use of construction schedules in resolving disputes over contract time extensions and the economic consequences of such, and takes an in-depth look at the only lasting opinions that count in this litigious arena. These opinions are the ones expressed by the United States court system and other third party neutrals across the world.
Construction schedules are now globally used and analyzed to establish and prove opposing positions when projects are completed later than promised, occurrences that are attributable to a multitude of causes during the construction process. Entitlement to equitable adjustments due to changed conditions is now argued across the globe and American court opinions are the linchpin landmarks for neutral decision makers.
The current edition of Construction Schedules reflects the current thinking of the courts and suggests how parties and their attorneys should prepare and proceed in litigation, arbitration, or mediation.
For anyone involved or potentially involved in construction schedule litigation and/or dispute resolution, this work is the required starting point and reference.
2021 Cumulative Supplement Contents
Chapter 2 PROJECT SCHEDULING TECHNIQUES
§ 2-1 Project Scheduling Overview
§ 2-7(c ) Choosing to Use Pull Planning
Chapter 3 THE LAW AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
§ 3-1(a)(1) Defining CPM
§ 3-4 The CPM/PDM Consultant
§ 3-5(c) Contract Completion Date Only Real Commitment
§ 3-9(b)(2) Owner’s Failure to Schedule or Coordinate
§ 3-10(b)(1) Shadow Schedules
§ 3-12 The Schedule as Notice
§ 3-13(a) Termination for Failure to Complete
§ 3-13(b) Termination for Failure to Make Progress
§ 3-13(c) Importance of a Schedule Analysis to Evaluate Failure to Progress Claims
§ 3-14 Recovery Schedules
Chapter 5 USING THE SCHEDULE TO PROVE TIME
§ 5-1 Introductory Thoughts
§ 5-2 Schedule Status and Approval
§ 5-3(a)(1) The Contemporaneous Method Explained
§ 5-3(a)(2) Contemporaneous Method without Contemporaneous Updates: The Time Impact Analysis
§ 5-3(f) Concurrent Delay
Chapter 6 THE STATUS OF NETWORK SCHEDULES
§ 6-3(d) The Schedule as Testimony to Be Confronted
§ 6-3(e) The Schedule as Expert Testimony
Chapter 7 CONTRACT SCHEDULING REQUIREMENTS
§ 7-1(a)(2) The ConsensusDOCS 300 Standard Form
§ 7-1(a)(3) The American Institute of Architects Standard Form A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction
§ 7-1(a)(6)(d) Military United Facilities Guide
§ 7-1(b)(4) To Demonstrate Delay
§ 7-2(a) The Consensus DOCS 750 2007 Standard Form Agreement between Contractor and Subcontractor
§ 7-2(b) A Typical Subcontract Agreement between Contractor and Subcontractor
§ 7-3 Recommended Owner Schedule-Related Clauses