Analysis of adverse weather for excusable delays

Long D. Nguyen, Jax Kneppers, Borja Garcia de Soto, William Ibbs

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Severe weather conditions can be disruptive to construction. Contractors typically obtain time extensions for weather days beyond normal conditions. However, contracting parties often dispute the extent of weather-related time extensions. Typical industry contracts may overlook many important points that can provide an acceptable resolution. This paper classifies seven factors causing discrepancies in analysis of adverse weather for time extensions; namely, the definition of normal weather, weather thresholds, type of work, lingering days, criteria for lost days, lost days equivalent due to lost productivity, and work days lost versus calendar days lost. An analysis of an actual weather-caused delay claim illustrates the impacts of those factors on the outcomes of the analysis. A contract should define anticipated weather delay days and their lingering days and provide threshold values for weather parameters to differentiate between predictable and unpredictable severe weather. The contract should clearly define how a time extension is granted in calendar days as a result of work days lost, and also address how a time extension is granted due to inefficiency caused by unusually severe weather. Future research may provide an appropriate mechanism for analyzing equivalent lost days to account for lost productivity.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)1258-1267
    Number of pages10
    JournalJournal of Construction Engineering and Management
    Volume136
    Issue number12
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Dec 1 2010

    Fingerprint

    Productivity
    Contractors
    Weather
    Industry
    Factors
    Calendar

    Keywords

    • Claims
    • Construction management
    • Contracts
    • Delay time
    • Weather

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Civil and Structural Engineering
    • Building and Construction
    • Industrial relations
    • Strategy and Management

    Cite this

    Analysis of adverse weather for excusable delays. / Nguyen, Long D.; Kneppers, Jax; Garcia de Soto, Borja; Ibbs, William.

    In: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136, No. 12, 01.12.2010, p. 1258-1267.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Nguyen, Long D. ; Kneppers, Jax ; Garcia de Soto, Borja ; Ibbs, William. / Analysis of adverse weather for excusable delays. In: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2010 ; Vol. 136, No. 12. pp. 1258-1267.
    @article{931568fced104116af97bc4c4e5fd9e1,
    title = "Analysis of adverse weather for excusable delays",
    abstract = "Severe weather conditions can be disruptive to construction. Contractors typically obtain time extensions for weather days beyond normal conditions. However, contracting parties often dispute the extent of weather-related time extensions. Typical industry contracts may overlook many important points that can provide an acceptable resolution. This paper classifies seven factors causing discrepancies in analysis of adverse weather for time extensions; namely, the definition of normal weather, weather thresholds, type of work, lingering days, criteria for lost days, lost days equivalent due to lost productivity, and work days lost versus calendar days lost. An analysis of an actual weather-caused delay claim illustrates the impacts of those factors on the outcomes of the analysis. A contract should define anticipated weather delay days and their lingering days and provide threshold values for weather parameters to differentiate between predictable and unpredictable severe weather. The contract should clearly define how a time extension is granted in calendar days as a result of work days lost, and also address how a time extension is granted due to inefficiency caused by unusually severe weather. Future research may provide an appropriate mechanism for analyzing equivalent lost days to account for lost productivity.",
    keywords = "Claims, Construction management, Contracts, Delay time, Weather",
    author = "Nguyen, {Long D.} and Jax Kneppers and {Garcia de Soto}, Borja and William Ibbs",
    year = "2010",
    month = "12",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000242",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "136",
    pages = "1258--1267",
    journal = "Journal of Construction Engineering and Management - ASCE",
    issn = "0733-9364",
    publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
    number = "12",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Analysis of adverse weather for excusable delays

    AU - Nguyen, Long D.

    AU - Kneppers, Jax

    AU - Garcia de Soto, Borja

    AU - Ibbs, William

    PY - 2010/12/1

    Y1 - 2010/12/1

    N2 - Severe weather conditions can be disruptive to construction. Contractors typically obtain time extensions for weather days beyond normal conditions. However, contracting parties often dispute the extent of weather-related time extensions. Typical industry contracts may overlook many important points that can provide an acceptable resolution. This paper classifies seven factors causing discrepancies in analysis of adverse weather for time extensions; namely, the definition of normal weather, weather thresholds, type of work, lingering days, criteria for lost days, lost days equivalent due to lost productivity, and work days lost versus calendar days lost. An analysis of an actual weather-caused delay claim illustrates the impacts of those factors on the outcomes of the analysis. A contract should define anticipated weather delay days and their lingering days and provide threshold values for weather parameters to differentiate between predictable and unpredictable severe weather. The contract should clearly define how a time extension is granted in calendar days as a result of work days lost, and also address how a time extension is granted due to inefficiency caused by unusually severe weather. Future research may provide an appropriate mechanism for analyzing equivalent lost days to account for lost productivity.

    AB - Severe weather conditions can be disruptive to construction. Contractors typically obtain time extensions for weather days beyond normal conditions. However, contracting parties often dispute the extent of weather-related time extensions. Typical industry contracts may overlook many important points that can provide an acceptable resolution. This paper classifies seven factors causing discrepancies in analysis of adverse weather for time extensions; namely, the definition of normal weather, weather thresholds, type of work, lingering days, criteria for lost days, lost days equivalent due to lost productivity, and work days lost versus calendar days lost. An analysis of an actual weather-caused delay claim illustrates the impacts of those factors on the outcomes of the analysis. A contract should define anticipated weather delay days and their lingering days and provide threshold values for weather parameters to differentiate between predictable and unpredictable severe weather. The contract should clearly define how a time extension is granted in calendar days as a result of work days lost, and also address how a time extension is granted due to inefficiency caused by unusually severe weather. Future research may provide an appropriate mechanism for analyzing equivalent lost days to account for lost productivity.

    KW - Claims

    KW - Construction management

    KW - Contracts

    KW - Delay time

    KW - Weather

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649290705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78649290705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000242

    DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000242

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:78649290705

    VL - 136

    SP - 1258

    EP - 1267

    JO - Journal of Construction Engineering and Management - ASCE

    JF - Journal of Construction Engineering and Management - ASCE

    SN - 0733-9364

    IS - 12

    ER -