The disruption is real and I can't put a number on it
Everyone knows the sequence was wrecked. Turning that into a disruption claim, with the loss of productivity measured, is the part that keeps failing.
Updated: . By Jack Butler-Kettle, Construction Claims Consultant.
To record the next diversion so it can be costed, see what to do when the diary says the gang was moved but not where to.
What's happening?
Everyone on the job agrees what happened. The records still cannot show what it cost. Out-of-sequence work, repeated access, stacked trades and changing design all hit productivity. But a total overrun does not show which cause produced which cost, and a total with no cause against it is easy to strike out.
To measure the loss you need a fair comparison. That means a reliable baseline, a clear affected period, and similar activities, outputs and resources. It also means allocation sheets, diaries and daywork records. Test for other causes too, such as weather, supply problems, a change in labour mix or your own changes. If the records are incomplete, another method may suit better, or the result may stay conditional.
One possible method is a measured-mile analysis, set out at paragraph 18.16(a) of the SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol. It compares your recorded productivity on similar work with and without the disruption. It only works where the records support that comparison. A convenient baseline is not always a reliable one.
The programme, your right to be paid and what legally caused the loss are separate questions. You or the right specialist answer them. Valuing the loss should not turn a factual comparison into an answer on any of them.
The solution
Choose a method your records can support, and explain its limits. Before calculating any loss, test whether the periods, activities and conditions are genuinely comparable. Name the baseline, the affected output, the resource mix and where the allocation comes from. Then run the comparison openly, with a source for every figure.
Delay & Disruption Claim builds the comparison from your own allocation sheets. We keep measured productivity apart from the programme, the right to be paid and legal questions. We state other causes, missing records and how much the answer moves with the period chosen, rather than presenting one total as the only answer.
Example
Illustrative example. The scenario and figures are invented.
The facts
A drylining subcontractor fitted out the first two floors of a four-storey block before the design changes, and the top two during them. Everyone agrees the upper floors were chaos. The records are checked for a method they can support.
What happens
- The weekly allocation sheets record boards fixed per gang per week on every floor. The diary records the design changes and the stacked trades, and the daywork sheets record the repeated access.
- That supports comparing recorded productivity between the lower and upper floors, if the periods are genuinely comparable. So they are tested.
- The work is the same board on the same partitions. But the labour mix changed on the top floor when two new operatives joined. And one third-floor week was lost to the subcontractor's own late delivery.
- Against the lower floors' baseline, the upper floors show 1,900 extra labour hours.
- The 200 hours in the late delivery week are taken out as the subcontractor's own cause. That leaves 1,700 hours at the subcontract rate of £28 an hour: £47,600.
- The labour mix is stated as another possible cause, and the sensitivity is shown. Using the first floor alone as the baseline gives £51,000.
The comparison in figures
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Extra labour hours, upper floors against lower | 1,900 hours |
| Less the late delivery week | 200 hours |
| Hours carried | 1,700 hours |
| Subcontract rate | £28 an hour |
| Disruption claim | £47,600 |
| Sensitivity, first floor alone as baseline | £51,000 |
The outcome
The disruption claim is tabled at £47,600, with the comparison and the allocation source attached. The questions of cause and the design change events go to the solicitor and a programming expert.
Sources
- Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd edition, February 2017. Society of Construction Law.