Street and Underground Improvements Project

This civil construction project involved street and underground utility improvements to Lincoln Street in Iola, Kansas. The construction contract between KDOT and the Contractor was based on installed quantities and unit rates, and the contract value was $2,002,183. During a preconstruction conference, KDOT and the City advised the Contractor that all utilities had not been relocated, and that the Contractors were advised that they could apply for any acceleration costs associated with additional crews.

Contractor’s Claim

The Contractor’s work was delayed 55 days, and it filed a construction schedule delay claim against KDOT. The Contractor claimed that it sustained a significant increase in equipment and labor costs, and lost its bonding capacity as a result of the schedule delays and schedule acceleration. However, the Contractor provided no schedule delay analysis and no other basis for allocating the 55 days of delay between events or the parties.

Construction Expert Analysis

The Holloway Consulting Group, LLC was retained by Southwestern Bell Telephone as the claims expert to provide expert witness services relating to this matter. Holloway performed a construction schedule delay analysis, schedule acceleration analysis, construction damages analysis, issued an expert report and found that:

1. Although the Contractor completed the project late, there were no compensable delays. The utilities interferences claimed as delays by the Contractor were more accurately described as disruptions. Other work areas were readily available to, and in close proximity of, the Contractor’s crews. In fact, the Contractor reassigned its work crews and continued to perform work.

2. The Contractor failed to disclose its daily equipment logs and time records indicating crew relocation time to calculate the actual cost of these disruptions.

3. There were other construction issues that impacted the Contractor’s work plan, such as the locations of water mains and gas lines, conflicts with existing storm sewer lines, and design changes.

4. The Contractor’s Extended Equipment claim costs were calculated on an inaccurate basis. The Contractor failed to produce equipment rental reports, equipment usage logs, daily construction reports, or any other documentation indicating equipment usage; therefore, the Contractor could not demonstrate which equipment items were used on any day of the Project, and which equipment costs increased or exceeded budget.

5. The Contractor failed to produce any documentation indicating that the Contractor had neither regained its ability to obtain bonds, nor made any attempt to obtain a bond prior to filing its complaint in the District Court.

Construction Claim Resolution

Holloway Consulting assisted our client in achieving a very favorable claim settlement early in the litigation.


We're sorry, but comments are closed.

Leave your comment: