Delays in the completion date of federal government construction projects may result in the federal government penalizing a contractor for the delay or may result in the contractor receiving additional compensation from the government. In order to determine liability for the delay, it must be determined whether the delay was excusable or non-excusable. The delay may be excusable as a result of unusually severe weather, strikes, or subcontractor delays. The delay may also be excusable if the government's specifications or designs were erroneous or if the government's inspection of the project interfered with the contractor's work.

In order for a contractor to prove that the government was responsible for a delay, the contractor must show that some event, which event was not within the control of the contractor, affected the completion date of the project. One of the methods of proving whether the delay was the fault of the federal government is the critical path method (CPM). The CPM is a technique that enables project personnel to predict when the project will be completed. It is a scheduling method that shows the most efficient way to complete the project, the sequence of the project, and the earliest completion date of the project. It identifies the steps that must be completed in proper sequence in order for the project to be completed on time. Under the CPM, a delay or an acceleration of the work along the critical path affects the completion date of the entire project.

The CPM must be used properly. The mere labeling of an analysis as the CPM does not necessarily result in a justification for a contractor's delay. The contractor must factor in excusable delays with non-excusable delays. The contractor must also adjust the schedule if the delay occurs early in the project.

The CPM should be used in conjunction with other methods of analysis in determining liability for the delay. An expert witness may use such methods as the time impact analysis, the window analysis, the as-built analysis, the but-for analysis, or the as-planned analysis. The expert compares the planned performance of the project with the actual performance of the project. This is called the as-planned analysis vs. the as-built analysis. The expert first determines whether the as-planned schedule was reasonable. The expert then identifies each act that caused the delay, the party who was responsible for the delay, the location of the act in the schedule, and the impact of the delay. The expert must also prove that his or her conclusions were objective and were fair to both the contractor and the government. The expert may also identify any delays that were caused by a third party.

An expert witness's analysis of delays in federal construction projects should not be biased and should not lead to an inevitable outcome for the party who hired the expert. The expert's analysis should identify all of the delays that affected a project's critical path, regardless of whether a contractor or the federal government was responsible for the delays. The expert should also identify the delays, regardless of whether they were excusable or non-excusable.

Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.