Steve Holloway, a prominent construction damages expert based in Denver, Colorado, has over 33 years of experience in construction disputes. He is often retained by the owner, A/E, GC, trade contractor, carrier, surety, and/or legal counsel in matters requiring damages analysis and opinions.
A formal, informal, or pending dispute might exist when we are retained. The damages and liability work we perform and the nature of the opinions we provide depend on various factors. These include the factual and legal issues, the nature of the project, and our client’s work. And also, whether our client is a claimant and/or defendant.
We submit an expert report, and at least one rebuttal or supplemental report in most formal disputes. We have issued and rebutted expert reports on matters from a low of several hundred thousand dollars to $5 Billion. There has never been a Daubert-type motion submitted against one of our experts.
Holloway’s Practice Areas
We have been retained as the construction damages expert in most types of breach of contract and tort claims. These have included differing site conditions, deficient contract documents, schedule delay, acceleration, work suspension, termination, contract rescission, contract changes, et al.
A substantial part of our construction damages expert practice is also associated with construction defects. Our owner-clients have filed claims where the contractor furnished incomplete or nonconforming work. These claims seek to recover the cost of repairs and/or the difference between the original contract price and the actual cost to complete.
Schedule Delay Analysis
Holloway Consulting’s staff are schedule delay experts and witnesses. Most of our cases require the analysis of and opinions on schedule delays and damages. We have found that Colorado courts, arbitration panels and most other legal forums have shown an increasing preference for CPM scheduling techniques. These techniques can help the fact finder to identify and quantify schedule delays, impacts, accelerations, and disruptions on construction projects. Authorities have demonstrated an expanding level of knowledge in using CPM scheduling in their decisions on contract disputes. We have seen an increasing sophistication by courts and panels in CPM scheduling matters. Many now prefer to focus on critical path delays on schedule delay claims.
The Critical Path
Holloway has testified before a wide range of judges and construction arbiters. Some were scheduling experts while others had almost no knowledge of CPM methods or job scheduling. The latter group presents a challenge to schedule delay experts. On the one hand, legal authorities have consistently held that delays to activities on the critical path(s) are of primary importance in evaluating schedule delay claims. On the other hand, many triers of fact simply do not under CPM methods.
Courts have held that a contractor will not be entitled to a time extension for an excusable delay unless the delay extends the overall project completion, i.e., extends the duration of the critical path. Conversely, a contractor may be entitled to the recovery of delay-related costs for non-critical path work activities.
A compensable delay need only increase the contractor’s cost of performance. Using an example from one of our cases, the owner caused delays to an off-site storage tank and pipeline. This delay resulted from defective and deficient specifications but did not delay the overall completion of the project. It also increased the contractor’s time-related costs for building the storage tank and pipeline. In this case, the contractor was entitled to recover delay-related costs even though the overall project was completed within the required contract period. These delay-related claims were also for lost productivity, disruption, or other direct costs.