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.