Ottesen, Jeffrey L., & Migliaccio, Giovanni (2023). Use of Predictive Models for Labor-Productivity Loss in Settling Disputes. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 15(1).
View Publication
Abstract
Given inherent difficulties in construction, optimizing labor efficiencies is paramount to project success. Research described in this article conducted demonstrates that an analysis of planned activities in a critical path methodology (CPM) schedule may be used to forecast future productivity inefficiencies. Specifically, this study relies on the concept of CPM schedule’s density, which is defined as the number of overlapping like-trade activities on any given workday. This metric is directly related to the required labor resources required to complete that work within the activities’ planned durations. Schedule density increases where more planned activities overlap with each other; for instance, occurrence of such increases is common when the schedule is accelerated. Regression models were derived using metrics drawn from CPM schedule updates’ activities and durations and compared to actual labor productivity experienced. Strong correlation findings support development of predictive models that quantify potential labor inefficiencies before they occur. However, the question remains as to the strength and applicability of predictive models in formal litigation. This paper presents findings of this research and discusses how such findings may be used to facilitate settlement in dispute resolution procedures.
Keywords
Ottesen, Jeffery L.; Migliaccio, Giovanni C.; Wulfsberg, H. James. (2016). Contractual Battles for Higher Ground: Case Examples. Journal Of Legal Affairs And Dispute Resolution In Engineering And Construction, 8(1).
View Publication
Abstract
Dispute resolution requires pursuit of mutual agreement and implies accordant resolve between the disputing parties. In truth, mutual agreement stems from acceptable risks and negotiated terms centered upon equity arguments wherein the parties assess, evaluate, negotiate, and battle for high ground. Where the parties clearly understand their respective positions relative to the applicable laws, facts outweigh emotions, and the parties are more likely to avoid disputes. This paper defines high ground based upon legal theory in quantum meruit, which means, as much as he deserves. Equity arguments can trump written contractual provisions. Owners, architects, engineers, and contractors must become wise to these arguments to protect its shareholders' interests. To promote understanding, five different case scenarios are presented using actual disputes experienced on (1) notice provisions, (2) cumulative impact claims, (3) no damages for delay clauses, (4) acceleration, and (5) owner review durations. These case scenarios demonstrate that acquiring high ground requires clear understanding and synchronization of both the contract and the applicable governing laws. Ultimately, the party possessing higher ground will find itself in a more favorable position when disputes occur. (c) 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Keywords
Legislation; Subcontracting; Disputing Parties; Equity Arguments; Legal Theory; Quantum Meruit; Contractual Provisions; Architects; Notice Provisions; Cumulative Impact Claims; Owner Review Durations; Governing Laws; Engineers; Contractors; Dispute Resolution; Contractual Battles; Project; Equity; Delay; Contractual Notice; Cumulative Impact; Total Cost Claim; No Damages For Delay; Acceleration
Ottesen, Jeffery L.; Martin, Greta A. (2019). Bare Facts and Benefits of Resource-Loaded CPM Schedules. Journal Of Legal Affairs And Dispute Resolution In Engineering And Construction, 11(3).
View Publication
Abstract
Forum papers are thought-provoking opinion pieces or essays founded in fact, sometimes containing speculation, on a civil engineering topic of general interest and relevance to the readership of the journal. The views expressed in this Forum article do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCE or the Editorial Board of the journal.