Scheduling and Global Claims Ramifications Under Time-at-Large Conditions

Abstract

Construction delays have been the core of interest in construction claims. Some delay events may occur alone while others may occur in concurrency with one another. These delays may be subject to claims by the contractor claiming for time extension and/or extra compensation. For a normal construction claim to succeed, the contractor needs to establish a link between the cause of the loss and its effect. However, when numerous activities interact together, the contractor may be unable to link between the delay and its effect. In that case, the contractor will put forward a global claim in order to be compensated for one huge loss effect.

When delays occur concurrently, a rather complex situation emanates as a universal definition is still unknown. An important difficulty in analyzing concurrency may surface when the excuse of pacing delays comes into play. Dealing with concurrency claims can become more problematic when contractors call time to have become at large. Upon calling time to have become at large, the contractor is obliged to finish the works within a reasonable time. The reasonable time shall consider the circumstances under which the works is being done. The literature is short on guidelines for the interaction between concurrency, pacing, time-at-large conditions, and global claims.

The aim behind this research is testing the interaction of time at large conditions and concurrency. On the other hand, testing if time at large makes room for pacing to be exercised excusably or justifiably by the contractor. Moreover, performing a critical analysis of case laws to analyze if the contractor’s computation of what is deemed to be a reasonable time is being built upon either a global claim or multiple individual incident-based claims.

These pillars helped in generating two theoretical models under the claim/dispute timeline of FIDIC 1999 and 2017 standard conditions of contract to pinpoint the major requirements that need to be done by the contractor, employer, and the dispute adjudication board. Finally, two real-life case studies are illustrated to validate the proposed theoretical models.

It was evident at the end of this research that the claim/dispute process under FIDIC 1999 or 2017 depends on the characteristics of each case. The characteristics set up the idea that the contractor might not succeed in packaging the loss incurred through a global claim. The contractor, on the other hand, needs to contemporaneously update the schedules and revise them if possible. Such an exercise may need to be followed but might render impracticable in some severe cases.

The outcomes of this study contribute to the existing findings obtained in the literature concerning concurrency, pacing, time-at-large situations, and global claims. A set of guidelines are offered to benefit dispute resolution practitioners, contractors, and employers.