Skip to main content

The following is an excerpt from an Interface Consulting work product issued for use in litigation, arbitration, or mediation (dispute resolution). Names, dates, and other information has been modified for client confidentiality purposes.

Landmark Construction v. Trinity Electric Arbitration

I. Introduction

I.A. Project Background

Wichita Independent School District (WISD or Owner) entered into a contract with Landmark Construction (Landmark) on April 19, 2007, to serve as the general contractor at Wichita ISD – Bradford-Reagan High School Project (BRHS or Project). The project included the construction of a new high school in....


Rendering of the Bradford-Reagan High School

 

Drawing A0.03 First Floor Plan

The project architect was Eagle. Provided below is an organization chart showing the relationship between key parties in this dispute, including other subcontractors of Landmark.

 

I.B. Dispute

The project schedule had a planned substantial completion date of May 1, 2009. However, due to delays during the project, actual substantial completion was achieved on....

 

 

Substantial completion was achieved approximately 57 days past the planned schedule completion of May 1, 2009.

Landmark is claiming Trinity is“solely” responsible for the delays on the Project. Landmark is also claiming Trinity provided....

I.C. Williams Consulting’s Report

Williams Consulting International (Williams) issued a Preliminary Report of Findings on February 4, 2010.

The report makes the following broad statements throughout....

I.D. Scope of Interface Consulting’s Report

Interface Consulting has been asked to review the project records and information and evaluate the schedule delays experienced on the project.

A project schedule includes a collection of work activities that must be performed. Each activity is tied to the overall schedule using relationships which indicate the dependencies between activities. For example, certain activities may not be able to start until another activity is completed. As an example, steel is not typically hung until after the foundation/footings are installed.

Predecessor activities generally are activities in a project schedule that must be completed prior to starting another activity. Using the example above, installing the foundation or footing would be considered a predecessor activity to installing steel. Trinity was faced with predecessor delays both before and after Change Order No. 13 was signed.

An as-built schedule is the final schedule for a project which shows the actual scope, actual start dates, actual completion dates, and actual durations of the activities. An as-built schedule is typically used at the end of a project to determine where possible delays occurred and assign responsibility for the delay to certain parties.

One of the primary methods used for analyzing a delay claim relies on the comparison of....

Interface Consulting used the few schedules provided to us in electronic format (Project Primavera) to determine successor and predecessor relationships as well as critical paths.

 

II. Summary of Opinions

We have used our extensive experience in project and construction management and our education in engineering and business (MBA) to perform my evaluation and analysis of the issues discussed in this opinion....

  • Landmark’s delay claim is without merit, lacks substantiation, and is valued at….
  • Landmark caused predecessor delays to the Project….
  • Landmark experienced multiple delays at the start of the project due to....
  • Landmark did not uphold the schedule....
  • Landmark and Eagle issued late changes and additional work to Trinity after....

 

III. Discussion of Opinions

…Landmark had multiple delays that affected the completion of the project, including....

III.A. Landmark-Caused Predecessor Delays

The Bradford Dawson High School project suffered early and significant delays through no fault of Trinity....

Below is a timeline summarizing various issues experienced by Landmark:

 

...

The lack of conditioned air was a Landmark-caused delay and was unrelated to any Trinity work activity. Furthermore....

 

773-Graphic-Schedule-Conditioned-Air.jpg

Landmark failed to properly coordinate and manage the Project, as multiple subcontractors experienced delays. The following are examples of activities that were originally not on the critical path but fell on or near the critical path as the Project progressed due to delays. The following graphs illustrate some of the more critical predecessor activities, such as ceiling grid and overhead rough-in of the fire protection (fire sprinkler) lines, which missed their planned start and finish dates and which pushed back the start and finish dates of Trinity’s work.

 

...

III.B. Change Order No. 13

...

III.C. Delays after Change Order No. 13

...

III.D. Late Changes by Landmark and Eagle

...

As summarized in the schedule graphic below, the Landmark change orders directing Trinity to perform additional work delayed Trinity’s work by at least 140 days past the planned Substantial Completion date of May 1, 2009. Landmark should have extended the project schedule through the time necessary for Trinity to perform this work. Therefore, the 140 days illustrated below are excusable delays for Trinity.

 

III.E. Landmark Failure to Account for Other Subcontractor Delays

Trinity is not solely responsible for the delays in the Project completion. There are multiple letters and punch lists which show multiple subcontractors on site until November 2009. Therefore, it is unreasonable to solely hold Trinity responsible for Landmark’s general conditions when multiple subcontractors were on site dealing with their own punch list and work scope.

...

III.F. Landmark Schedule Failures

Landmark failed to effectively manage the schedule on this project and....

…a majority of the logic relationships between predecessors and successors went from an FS to an SS relationship.

 

     

                                                                          ICI summary of Claim Digger reports

 

 

Efficient and productive construction work tends to follow a certain sequence. For example.... 

As discussed above, Landmark had the following scheduling management deficiencies on this project:

  • Did not manage/update the schedule through project completion and, as such, did not produce an as-built schedule.
  • Did not update the schedule from December 22, 2008, through April 23, 2009.
  • Manipulated the scheduling logic from FS to SS.
  • Completely revised the entire schedule with the December 22, 2008, schedule update.

...

III.G. Fire Alarm

III.H. Observations Regarding Landmark’s Delay-Based Damages

Landmark is seeking to recover $635,564 from Change Order Nos. 41, 42, and 43 in delay-based back charges against Trinity.

Delays to Substantial Completion

...

As illustrated below, Landmark is responsible for significant project delays. In addition, Landmark has assessed at least 50 days of delay against Triton through substantial completion.

 

....

Delays to Completion and Close-out

The second delay damage assessment period is from Substantial Completion to project completion, including....

As illustrated in the schedule graphic below, there were significant delays through at least November 18, 2009, caused by either Landmark or other contractors, through no fault of Trinity.

 

773-Graphic-Schedule-Delays-2.jpg

 

While Interface Consulting disagrees that Trinity is responsible for delays, it is Interface Consulting’s opinion that, should it be determined otherwise, the maximum that can possibly be assessed against Trinity is....

 

IV. Conclusion

...

 

V. Signature

...
 

VI. Exhibits

...