MT281 Unit 6 Seminar Reflection Example

Excusable, But Did It Move the Finish: A Unit 6 Seminar Reflection on Three Station 2 Delays

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT281: Fundamentals of Construction Management

Unit 6 Seminar Reflection

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Station 2, its delays, the seminar group and the classmates are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

The Exercise

Our instructor gave each seminar group the Station 2 schedule from the previous unit and three delay events. For each, we had to decide whether the delay was excusable, meaning the contractor would not be penalized for it, and compensable, meaning the contractor would also be paid for the time. The extension clause in the general conditions, Section 8.3.1, says the contractor may be entitled to an extension for delays caused by the owner or architect, by changes, by unusual delays in deliveries, by adverse weather beyond what could reasonably be anticipated, and by other causes the architect determines may justify delay (American Institute of Architects [AIA], 2017).

My First Answers

The three events were these. The joist and deck supplier's plant had a breakdown, and the joists arrived nineteen working days late. Rain beyond the contract's allowance stopped work for three days during the bay undercut. And the structural engineer took nine working days, instead of the three the contract allowed, to answer the request for information about the door lintels, so door fabrication started six days late.

I gave my answers quickly. The joists: an unusual delay in delivery, excusable, not compensable, nineteen days of extension. The rain: excusable, not compensable, three days. The lintel answer: caused by the owner's engineer, excusable and compensable, six days and the contractor's extended costs. I was confident because each matched a phrase in the clause.

The Question About Float

A classmate, Andrés, who works for a general contractor, asked one question: how much float did joist fabrication have? I looked at the schedule. Twenty-nine days. A nineteen-day slip used nineteen of those days and left the finish date exactly where it was. There was nothing to extend.

He made the point plainly: a delay that does not move the critical path does not, by itself, entitle anyone to more time. Halpin et al. (2017) make the same point, that a time extension follows from an effect on completion, not from the fact that something happened late. The cause matters only after the effect is known.

I had asked who caused the delay before asking whether it delayed anything.

The Other Two Delays

With that question first, the other two looked different. The rain fell during the bay undercut, which is critical with zero float, so the three days moved the finish. Rain beyond the allowance is the kind of adverse weather the clause covers, so the contractor gets three days but no money, since neither party caused the weather. My first answer was right, but now for the right reason.

The lintel answer delayed door fabrication by six days, and the doors had eight days of float. The finish did not move. So even though the owner's engineer caused the delay, there is no time extension. Whether the contractor is owed any cost, for example for a fabricator's expediting charge, depends on whether it actually spent money, which is a separate question from time. Trauner et al. (2009) distinguish delays that consume float from delays that extend completion and note that disputes often arise when the two are confused.

My group also discussed who owns float. Some classmates argued the contractor owns it, since the contractor built the schedule. Others argued it belongs to the project. Our contract was silent, which our instructor said is common and is one reason float disputes are frequent.

Why My First Answers Felt Right

Looking back, my mistake was a natural one. The clause is written as a list of causes, so reading it encourages a person to start with cause. In my work at the township, delays are usually discussed the same way: whose fault was it? The schedule, which answers the more important question, sat in a binder nobody opened during the arguments. The seminar showed me that a clause about causes only becomes useful after the schedule has done its work. It also showed me why contractors keep careful schedules: without one, nobody can show which delays moved the finish, and every delay becomes an argument about blame.

The Order of Questions Now

I now ask three questions in this order. First, did the delay affect the critical path, and by how many days? Second, what caused it, and does the contract treat that cause as excusable? Third, if excusable, is it also compensable, and did the contractor incur cost? On Station 2 that order turns my first answers of nineteen, three and six days into three days for the rain and nothing for the other two.

References

American Institute of Architects. (2017). AIA document A201-2017: General conditions of the contract for construction. American Institute of Architects.

Halpin, D. W., Lucko, G., & Senior, B. A. (2017). Construction management (5th ed.). Wiley.

Trauner, T. J., Manginelli, W. A., Lowe, J. S., Nagata, M. F., & Furniss, B. J. (2009). Construction delays: Understanding them clearly, analyzing them correctly (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.