CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS

        In large project disputes, millions of dollars are often at issue. To prevail, you must present an argument that fully supports your claim or defense. That's where Delta CPM provides invaluable assistance. We are specialists in construction claims. We know the practical aspects of construction, scheduling, and cost allocation. We analyze the issues and prepare detailed reports to support claims or defenses. We translate a complex job history into a straightforward account of what happened, why, and who is responsible.

Delta CPM thoroughly investigates job cost overruns. Our comprehensive reports analyze every aspect of "problem" projects, including:

  • DEFECTIVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

  • DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION

  • CRITICAL PATH SCHEDULE DELAYS AND IMPACTS

  • ACCELERATION, OUT-OF-SEQUENCE WORK AND DISRUPTION

  • PRODUCTION INEFFICIENCIES

  • DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS


    •         Delta CPM's reports are based on a strong foundation of evidentiary support, making them ideal tools for attorneys. We define the issues in detail, establishing responsibility and liability. Using CPM scheduling techniques, Delta CPM analyzes the effect of issues on critical path activities and the overall schedule.







    A TRACK RECORD OF FAVORABLE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS

            Since 1988, Delta CPM has prepared over 450 successful claim presentations for contractors, subcontractors, owners, architects, and attorneys. We have extensive experience on large projects, both public and private. Our services have been utilized on national and international projects. We can assist attorneys with expert testimony and court exhibits. The vast majority of our claims, however, are settled favorably without the time and expense of court - a measure of the strength of our reports. An accurate assessment, clearly presented and fully documented - that's what it takes to settle a claim in your favor.  That's what Delta CPM delivers.







    A CASE IN POINT
    General Contractor vs. Subcontractor

            A general contractor hired a mechanical contractor to handle the detailing, fabrication and installation of a new cogeneration plant. The plans were deficient, creating 252 change orders and significant delays. The general contractor also failed to deliver equipment, materials and services on time. A project that was supposed to last 76 days actually lasted 144 days.

    The contractors disagreed on the amount of additional payment, so the subcontractor hired Delta CPM to prepare a report. We documented how the design deficiencies, changes and late delivery caused significant delays, out-of-sequence work, and acceleration for the subcontractor. We provided an analysis of each change order, establishing responsibility for the change, impact on other activities and the overall schedule, and cost. We documented the impacts of the delays and deficient plans on detailing, fabrication, and field installation, clearly spelling out why the additional hours were justified. We also calculated extended home office overhead, extended field overhead, and uncompensated change orders. The claim was resolved out of court.







    A CASE IN POINT
    Contractor vs. Utility Company

    A pipeline contractor was hired by a major utility to replace 46 miles of 26" pipe. The utility failed to provide continuous site access, creating a number of delays and out-of-sequence work. As a result, the contractor expended significant additional labor and equipment hours, for which he claimed payment.

    The utility blamed the contractor, claiming that the contractor was responsible for its own delays and cost overruns. Delta CPM documented that the contract and trade standards clearly supported the contractor's position. Delta CPM analyzed each "skip" in detail. Our report explained when, where, and why the out-of-sequence work occurred, the additional manpower and equipment hours required, and the additional payment due to the contractor. We calculated the overhead due for the additional days. In addition, we showed that the utility had wrongfully deducted a portion of the retention payment and had failed to pay interest on late progress payments.

    The case was settled out of court, and the contractor was compensated for additional labor, equipment, overhead, and its retention.