Holloway served as the sprinkler contractor’s delay expert

Construction schedule delay Case

Steve Holloway served as the sprinkler contractor’s construction schedule delay expert on the Apartment complex located in Colorado Springs. The project consists of 10 buildings with 30 units each, plus a clubhouse. The original work was suspended in 1998 by the previous contractors and owner. Buildings 1 through 6 were at varying levels of completion. The project was later purchased in January 2003 by XXXLLC.

The GC contracted with the Sprinkler Subcontractor in February 2003 to complete the fire protection systems. At that time, Buildings 1 through 6 were wired. Building 1 fire protection was at 95%, Building 2 was 90%, Building 3 was 80%, Building 4 was 70%, and Building 5 was 50%. Fire protection on buildings 6 through 10 had not yet started. The GC terminated the Sprinkler Subcontractor for convenience in August 2004. The Sprinkler Subcontractor’s overall work was approximately 90% complete. The Sprinkler Subcontractor then filed a claim for the unpaid contract amount.

In its counterclaim, the GC has alleged that the Sprinkler Subcontractor is solely responsible for delaying the completion of Buildings 1 through 10. In terms of damages, the Sprinkler Subcontractor has caused the GC to suffer lost rents.

Construction schedule delay expert findings

Holloway served as the contractor’s construction schedule delay expert. We analyzed the course of construction and performed a CPM schedule delay analysis. Holloway believes that the GC’s claims are unreasonable, unsupportable, and should be denied because:

1. The GC is not an expert in construction schedule delay analysis.
2. The GC has not designated a delay expert in this matter.
3. The GC has not submitted a schedule delay analysis in this matter.
4. The contract between the GC and the Sprinkler Subcontractor did not contain a project schedule and did not contain any required completion dates for the Sprinkler Subcontractor’s work.
5. The Sprinkler Subcontractor’s proposal, which became part of its contract with the GC, specifically excluded any responsibility for delays without prompt receipt of a project schedule from the GC. The Sprinkler Subcontractor finally received a “schedule matrix” from the GC on March 10, 2004, twelve months after its contract and commencement of work.
6. Holloway’s investigation has found that the Sprinkler Subcontractor was not the cause for delay to the completion of any of the buildings. Rather, all of the building completion dates were delayed by the actions of the GC and its other subcontractors.
7. Holloway believes that the GC’ August 5, 2004 termination of the Sprinkler Subcontractor was at the GC’ convenience.
8. Holloway believes that the Sprinkler Subcontractor is not responsible for any delay to these buildings, regardless of the panel’s conclusion regarding the legal nature of the Sprinkler Subcontractor’s termination.