Cumulative Impact 2012:

Practical and Legal Considerations

with Case Law Review

Dr. William Ibbs

The Ibbs Consulting Group, Inc.

and

University of California at Berkeley

1
 Agenda

1. Introductions & goals (5 minutes).

2. ABC’s of Cumulative Impact & Productivity (15).

3. Cumulative Impact Legal issues (30).

4. Measuring Cumulative Impact damages (20).

5. Discussion, Q & A, Wrap-up (20).

2
 Agenda

1. Introductions & goals.

2. The ABC’s of Cumulative Impact and Productivity.

3. Cumulative Impact Legal issues.

4. Different approaches to measuring Cumulative Impact

damages.

5. Discussion, Q & A, Wrap-up.

3
 William Ibbs

• Professor of Civil Engineering

– Construction Management teaching & research
– Productivity research

• Consultant
– Loss of Productivity, Scheduling, Standard of Care
– Powerplants, Tunnels, Bridges, Schools,
Buildings, Transit Systems
– Expert Witness, Mediator, DRB member

4
 Goals of Course

• Define Cumulative Impact (CI) Claims.

• Illustrate Impact on Productivity

• Highlight important legal concepts.

• Different ways to measure CI damages

5
 Agenda

1. Introductions & goals.

2. ABC’s of Cumulative Impact & Productivity.

3. Cumulative Impact legal issues.

4. Different approaches to measuring CI damages.

5. Discussion, Q & A, Wrap-up.

6
 What is Productivity?

Productivity = Production Output/Resource Input

= 4 Lineal-Feet of 4” pipe/labor-hour

Productivity Index = Actual Productivity/Planned Productivity

= 3 LF per l-hr/4 LF per l-hr

= 0.75

7
 Why is Productivity Important?

Labor costs =
(Quantity of Work) x (Cost/Crew-Hour)
Productivity/Crew-hour

= 1000 LF of 4” pipe x $100/Crew-Hour

25 LF/C-Hr

= $4,000

8
 Why is Productivity Important?
– Hypothetical Project –

Labor 40%
•Largest cost
Materials 40% component
General Conditions • Most volatile
& Indirect Costs 10%
• Most critical
Overhead 5% to control
Profit 5%
Total 100%

9
 Hypothetical Project

Labor 40% 45%

Materials 40%
General Conditions
A 12.5%
& Indirect Costs 10% overrun in the
Overhead 5% labor
component
Profit 5%
Total 100%

10
 Hypothetical Project

Labor 45%
Materials 40%
Wipes out all
General Conditions profit!
& Indirect Costs 10%
Overhead 5%
Profit 0%
Total 100%

11
 Factors that Affect Productivity
• Poor design • Changes & Their Timing
• Stacking of Trades • Congestion
• Overtime • Shift work
• Weather/seasonality • Day/Night
• Interrupted learning curve • Site access
• Dilution of supervision • Fatigue
• Logistics • Morale
• Crew size inefficiency • QA/QC
• Late deliveries • Concurrent operations
• Wrong means & methods • Poor management
• Complicated designs • Lack of training
• Out of sequence work • Mistakes
• Constructive acceleration • Staff turnover
12
 Agenda

1. Introductions & goals.

2. The ABC’s of CI and Productivity.

3. Cumulative Impact legal issues.

4. Different approaches to measuring CI damages.

5. Discussion, Q & A, Wrap-up.

13
 Symbolic Impact of a Change

Downstream,
ripple effects of
Direct impact of a change
a change

= A change

14
 Synergistic Impact of Multiple Changes

Downstream,
ripple effects of
Direct impact of Synergy Change #2
Change #1

Downstream, Direct impact of

ripple effects of = Changes Change #2
Change #1
15
What hurts Productivity?

16
 Cumulative Impact
“Impact costs are additional costs occurring as a result of the
loss of productivity; … also termed inefficiency…if
productivity declines, the number of man-hours of labor to
produce a given task will increase…

“Direct impact is generally characterized as the immediate

and direct disruption resulting from a change that lowers
productivity…[It] is considered foreseeable and the
disrupting relationship to unchanged work can be related in
time and space to a specific change…

Centex Bateson Construction Co., VABCA Nos. 4613, 5162-5165, December 3,

1998. 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,153, 149, 257.

17
 Court Acceptance of Cumulative Impact

“. . . courts have often recognized that the extent of harm

suffered as a result of delay, such as the loss of efficiency
claim at issue, may be difficult to prove. Thus, courts have
recognized that a plaintiff may recover even where it is
apparent that the quantum of damage is unavoidably
uncertain, beset by complexity, or difficult to ascertain, if the
damage is caused by the wrong.”

S. Leo Harmonay, Inc. v. Binks Mfg. Co., 597 F. Supp. 1014 (S.D.N.Y., 1984).

18
 Cumulative Impact Measurement

“It is a rare case where loss of productivity can be

proven by books and records; almost always it has to
be proven by the opinions of expert witnesses.
However the mere expression of an estimate as to the
amount of productivity loss by an expert witness
with nothing to support it will not establish the
fundamental fact of resultant injury nor provide a
sufficient basis for making a reasonably correct
approximation of damages.”

Luria Brothers & Co. v. US, 369 F.2d 701 (Ct. Cl. 1966).

19
 Measuring CI Changes

• Forward pricing
– Negotiated
– Time & Material

• Retrospective
– Industry studies

20
 Cumulative Impact LoP

“Cumulative impact is referred to as the “ripple effect” of

changes on unchanged work that causes a decrease in
productivity and is not analyzed in terms of spatial or
temporal relationships. This phenomenon arises at the point
the ripple … disturbs the project such that entitlement to
recover additional costs resulting from the turbulence
spontaneously erupts ... Cumulative impact has also been
described in terms of the fundamental alteration of the
parties’ bargain resulting from the change.”

Centex Bateson Construction Co., VABCA Nos. 4,613, 5,162-5,165,

December 3, 1998. 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,153
 Effect of Many Changes

[C]umulative disruption … is the synergistic effect … of

changes on the unchanged work and on other changes.
Appeal of Triple “A” South; ASBCA No. 46866, 94-3, BCA ¶ 27,194.

=> Affects both the base contract work and other

change work and their productivities.

22
 Cumulative Impact Cases Accepted
Case Type of Work Extent of Change Ruling

General Court ruled earthwork was contaminated but

Electronics & Missile contracting for Additional 15,000 CY of contractor was 1) overstating amount and 2) could
Facilities (1969)[1] 300 military topsoil removed and stored. have estimated contaminated and non-
housing units contaminated portions with reasonable accuracy.

Litton Systems, Inc., 58% increase in contract

Nuclear Fundamental change in the contract caused by
Ingalls Shipbuilding value & 4-year delay resulting
submarines multiple change orders.
Division (1978)[2] from thousands of COs.

Large number of changes. Plaintiff recovered for “increased performance

Coley Properties
Postal facility Unchanged work performed costs due to the impact of changes ordered by US
Corp. (1979)[3]
out of sequence due to COs. Postal Service.

Owner 1) abandoned & breached contract; and 2)

Multiple design errors and
as proximate result, guaranteed maximum
C. Norman Peterson Papermill changes. Hundreds of COs
contract provisions not applicable and contractor
Co. (1985)[4] modernization not in writing, many
entitled to recover reasonable costs. Judgment in
significant.
the sum of $2,898,687 with interest.

Numerous changes ordered by Ongoing piecemeal changes impacted entire

State ex rel. Dept. of Highway
state engineers over course of operation. Jury verdict method adopted because
Transp. (1986)[5] construction
project. sufficient proof impossible.
23
 Accepted Cases

Some changes had a cumulative impact on job progress

David J. Tiernay Building as a whole, contractor entitled to compensation. Jury
44 COs issued.
(1988)[6] construction verdict method was adopted due to insufficient proof of
damages.
26 CO's issued due to Compensation for cumulative impact costs. Markup
Charles G. Williams
GC defective drawings and (15%) in each change order did not adequately
Constr., Inc. (1989)[7]
specifications. compensate for cumulative disruption.
Recognized cumulative impacts. Productivity loss
Various change orders and
result of multiple change orders. Additional costs for
Atlas Constr. Co., Inc. design
GC updating CPM schedules and field office overhead also
(1990)[8] variances/clarifications
awarded. Late, tenant-directed changes influenced
issued.
Court in contractor’s favor.
Damages for increased labor costs due to lost
Clark Concrete Blast redesign was ongoing
GC for 13 story productivity, additional work, and OT premium. Board
Contractors, Inc. during the course of
office building. held Clark was responsible for 71 days of delay and
(1999)[9] construction.
GSA for remaining 185 days.

Undeniable productivity losses caused by change in

sequence and wet conditions. Liability and causation
Plumbing and Construction sequence not detailed, government’s changes so pervasive that
The Clark Construction mechanical changed from horizontal to any analysis would not likely have been possible.
Group, Inc. (2000)[10] subcontracting for vertical; late response to MCAA methodology . Board found that “the
medical center. RFIs; design conflicts percentage estimates of to be an appropriate method to
quantify such losses.” Change in sequence impacted
productivity.
24
 Accepted Cases

Over 400 COs, 5% cost

increase and 107 days Contractor reserved right to seek additional
Electrical; general
delay. Contractor impact costs. Design deficiencies and
P.J. Dick, Inc. contracting for the
completed work 260 days constructive acceleration reduced
(2001)[11] clinical addition to a
after original contract productivity. Measured mile of similar
medical center
completion date and 153 work allowed. Late changes.
days after revised date.

Sheer number of changes did not result in

Owner issued 248 abandonment of a public works contract.
sketches affecting Total Cost method “disfavored,” 4-part
Electrical work in a electrical costs; 221 federal test: 1) impracticality of proving its
Amelco Electric multi-prime scenario change orders requested. actual losses directly; 2) bid was reasonable;
(2002)[12] for the construction of Both parties agreed upon 3) actual costs were reasonable; and 4) not
civic arts plaza. 32 COs encompassing responsible for the added costs. Court
these requests and concluded contractor did not establish how
increase of nearly 17%. any particular breach caused certain
damages/

34% increase in cost due Reasonable basis for a cumulative impact

to 206 contract claim. Court held release language
Bell BCI Co. General contracting for
modifications; 730 Extra ambiguous and contractor did not expressly
(2008)[13] a laboratory building
Work Orders; 70% release its cumulative impact claim with any
increase in duration. signed CO. 25
 Denied Cases
Case Type of Work Extent of Change Ruling

Watt Plumbing, Air Contractor alleged breach of Not breach of contract because modification of
Conditioning & Elec., Electrical contract by excessive contract becomes part of contract and the
Inc., (1975)[14] change. contract as altered was agreed by the parties.
39 COs resulting in 19% Contract language not allowing for claims not
Dyson & Co. (1978)[15] Mechanical
increase in contract value. included in the previous change orders.
12% increase in contract
value due to 206 change
Electrical and
Pittman Constr. Co. orders; 10% increase in Not fundamental change in the contract. Many
plumbing; general
(1983)[16] duration – 102 days on changes foreseeable.
contracting
1,000-day original contract
duration.
Contractor failed to reserve the rights to recover
Central Mechanical Release language included in
Mechanical cumulative impact costs. Waiver and releases
Constr. (1986)[17] multiple change orders.
barred any subsequent claim.
Not a fundamental change in the contract for a
cumulative impact. Multiple changes alone did
Freeman-Darling, Inc.
General contracting Numerous change orders. not constitute a compensable cumulative impact
(1989)[18]
claim, because many were small dollar-value
(less than $5000).
Information not Court agreed that the changes impacted labor
Triax Co. (1993)[19] available from Numerous change orders. productivity. No proof of causal linkage between
decision. numerous changes and cost overruns.

26
 Denied Cases

Differing site condition

The Appeal of Gulf Coast
Not available and reduced production No proof of causation shown.
Trailing Co. (1994)[20]
rate.
202 COs incorporated in Insufficient causal connection. Contractor had to
Dry-docking, 95 contract stop, wait for materials, and then restart, but the daily
Southwest Marine, Inc.
repairing, and modifications were records showed manpower levels were accordingly
(1994)[21]
modifying a ship issued during the course reduced. No persuasive evidence reduced manpower
of work. was inefficient.
General
Dawson Constr. Co. Numerous change
contracting for Contractor did not adeaquately show causation.
(1993)[22] orders.
medical center.
1,561 events reflected in Board agreed that cumulative impacts may be
Centex Bateson Constr. Electrical; general over 700 RFIs in recovered but existence of multiple COs not
Co., Inc. (1998)[23] contracting electrical work; 5.6% sufficient. Late responses to RFIs demonstrated but
increase in costs. contractor failed to tie that to impact (causation).
Permit delay and design
The Appeal of Coates No proof of causal linkage between changes and LOP.
deficiencies; 157
Industrial Piping, Inc. Mechanical Court emphasized contractor had some foreseeability
change order requests
(1999)[24] of changes and productivity impacts.
(CORs)
34% increase in cost
Contract modification language releasing Government
due to 206 contract
General from “any and all liability”. GC used earned value
modifications; 730
Bell BCI Co. (2009)[25] contracting a measured mile approach, subcontractor used units of
Extra Work Orders;
laboratory work approach. Note: Court previously found release
70% increase in
language was ambiguous.
duration.
27
 Agenda

1. Introductions & goals.

2. ABC’s of CI and Productivity.

3. Cumulative Impact legal issues.

4. Measuring CI damages.
5. Discussion, Q & A, Wrap-up.

28
 Measuring Cumulative Change’s Impact

• Total Cost & Modified Total Cost

• MCAA

• Corps of Engineers Mod Guide (Rescinded)

• Ibbs and Leonard Approaches

• Measured Mile approach

29
Selecting Right Cumulative Impact Measurement Method

High High
Jury verdict

Expertise/Cost to Prepare or Use

Total cost
Modified total cost
General industry studies
Specific industry studies
Uncertainty

Comparison studies
Sampling methods

Earned value
Measured mile
Baseline productivity
System dynamics

Low Low
Low Contemporaneous Project Documentation High

30
 Total Cost Approach

• Actual expenditure = 32,984 l-hrs

• Bid 24,000 l-hrs
• Lost hours 8,984
• Hourly rate x $38.33 / hr
• Lost labor productivity cost $342,824
• Markup @ 20% 68,565
• Total value $411,389

31
 Total Cost Conditions

1. Nature of losses makes it impossible or highly

impractical to determine with a reasonable degree of
accuracy.

2. Plaintiff must prove bid or estimate was realistic.

3. Actual costs incurred were reasonable.

4. Plaintiff must demonstrate it was not responsible for

added expenses.
Thomas Shea, “Proving Productivity Losses in Government Contracts,” Public Contract Law Journal, (1989).

32
 Modified Total Cost Approach

• Labor (actual) 32,984 l-hrs

• Labor (estimate + changes) - 25,438
• Overrun = 7,546
• Mis-estimate & mis-mgt. - 1,063
• Lost labor = 6,483
• Labor rate x $38.33
• Direct field labor costs = $248,483

• Markup @ 20% + $49,697

• Total value of change = $298,180

33
 MCAA Factors
Condition Level of Impact
Minor Average Severe
1. Stacking of Trades 10% 20% 30%
2. Morale & Attitude 5% 15% 30%
3. Reassignment of Manpower 5% 10% 15%
4. Crew Size Inefficiency 10% 20% 30%
5. Concurrent Operations 5% 15% 25%
6. Dilution of Supervision 10% 15% 25%
7. Learning Curve 5% 15% 30%
8. Errors & Omissions 1% 3% 6%
9. Beneficial Occupancy 15% 25% 40%
10. Joint Occupancy 5% 12% 20%
11. Site Access 5% 12% 30%
12. Logistics 10% 25% 50%
13. Fatigue 8% 10% 12%
14. Ripple 10% 15% 20%
15. Overtime 10% 15% 20%
16. Season & Weather Change 10% 20% 30%

34
 MCAA – Backward Pricing
Actual hours = 18,000 hrs

Contractor bust = 300 hrs

Adjusted, actual hours = 17,700 hrs

MCAA LoP factor = 30%

“Should have” hours = 17,700/(1.30)

= 13,615 hrs
Lost hours = 17,700 – 13,615

= 4,085
35
 Courts and MCAA

“[The expert’s] assessment of the productivity losses is far from

a “guestimate” devoid of support. It stems from a thorough
knowledge of the contract requirements and the actual history of
contract performance…He testified his assessment was based
upon knowledge and understanding of the project which, in turn,
was derived from numerous interviews with project personnel,
extensive review of project documents, analysis of an as-built
schedule, his experience in the and his expertise in assessing
labor productivity losses…
“Clearly this type of analysis is founded upon and involves the
continual application of the principles of cause and effect.”

Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA No.

14744
36
 Leonard Curves

60
% LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY
E
C AUS
50 R
M A JO
+2 E
40 C AUS
R
M A JO
+1 LY
30
S ON
E
A NG
20 CH

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

% CHANGE ORDERS

F ig u re 1 E L E C T R IC A L A N D M E C H A N IC A L W O R K

37
 Courts and Leonard

“The Leonard Study also is not applicable to heavy civil engineering

construction projects like the Matewan [Dam] project. Leonard studied
57 relatively small building and facility projects, consisting of 74
contracts totaling $220 million, mostly in Canada. The study is based
upon smaller projects, different scope, and trades than the project in
question . . . It was discredited by the Government’s expert . . . and we
consider it to be inappropriate for use here.”

J.A. Jones Construction Co., ENGBCA No. 6348, 00-2 BCA ¶ 31000 (Corps of
Engineers BCA 2000)

38
 Courts and Leonard

Court-appointed Special Master dismissed the study as “wholly

unreliable because it is based on unfounded assumptions, biased
and incomplete data, and speculative determinations.”

The Court rejected the expert witness testimony based on the

Leonard Study because the expert failed to show a causal
connection between change orders and claimed loss of
productivity.

Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. George Hyman Const. Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22627
(E.D. Pa. 1998)

39
 Ibbs LoP Curves

y = 2.4621x2 - 2.169x + 1.0589

Performance Index R2 = 0.72

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Amount of Change

40
 Ibbs Curves – Timing of Change

Late Change Normal Change Early Change

Productivity Index

1.2

-1.0228x
1.0 y = 1.0511e
R2 = 0.81
0.8

0.6
y = 2.0421x 2 - 1.9234x + 1.0471
R2 = 0.63

0.4

y = 0.9796e -1.924x
0.2 R2 = 0.76

0.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

% Change

41
 Design Change vs. Design LoP

Design Change v. Design Productivity

Design Productivity Index
y = -0.28x2 - 0.48x + 0.94
1.2 2
R = 0.58

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
% Change

42
 Measured Mile Approach

1. Identify an unimpacted
baseline productivity
2. Determine actual
production rate for
period of owner-caused
Q1 Q2
disruptions 20 piles/day 25 piles/day
12.5 wd 10 wd
3. Compare baseline vs.
actual production rates
Q4 Q3
25 piles/day 12 piles/day
10 wd 21 wd
Δ Prod = (25 – 10)
= 15 piles/day

43
 Courts and Measured Mile

“Quantifying loss of labor productivity is difficult and that

determination of the dollar amount of damages with exactitude is
essentially impossible. In recognizing this fact, we expect that
the measurement of inefficiency would usually be supported by
expert testimony.

“The use of a “measured mile” analysis developed by a qualified

expert is recognized as the most reliable, though not exact,
methodology to quantify labor inefficiency.”

P.J. Dick, Inc., VABCA No. 5597, 01-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 31,647

44
 Courts and Measured Mile
“A measured mile (or good period versus bad period) analysis
compares the actual labor productivity of performing during a
time period in which the work was not impacted by the actions
causing labor inefficiency to the actual productivity rate for
performing work during a period that was so impacted. Such
analysis generally presumes that labor productivity rates being
compared are for the same work and, ideally, results in a
standard against which the effect of the government-caused
change to working conditions can be measured.”

P.J. Dick, Inc., VABCA No. 5597, 01-2 B.C.A(CCH) ¶ 31,647

45
 Principles for Developing Measured Mile Process

1. Selecting measured mile analyst.

a. Use impartial, experienced, knowledgeable experts.
b. Cost accounting and construction knowledge.
c. Review entire project record. Interview personnel.

2. Selecting impacted period.

a. Graphically plot productivity over time.
b. Use statistical methods.
c. Compute productivity, not production data.
d. Demonstrate cause-and-effect..
e. Develop “impact severity” categories.

46
 Measured Mile Process Principles

3. Selecting measured mile period.

a. Select narrow spectrum of similar work.
b. Confirm reference period was “unhindered” or else adjust.
c. If no measured mile available, use other information.
i. Baseline Productivity analysis

4. Calculating LOP
a. Apply factors to just time &trade disrupted.
b. Adjust for paid change orders, non-recoverable losses.
c. Look for several different ways to compute a measured mile.

5. Present analysis clearly.

6. Tell the truth

47
 LoP and Delay Can Be Independent Claims

“Though loss of productivity can cause a delay in completion, it

is not generally included as an element of delay damages. This
allows recovery by a contractor for both delay costs (for example,
extended jobsite overhead) and loss of productivity. It is not
considered a double recovery to be awarded both types of
damages.”

U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Blake Construction Co., 671 F.2d 539 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

48
 Cumulative Impact Claim Process

• Review Baseline & Updated Schedule

• Determine status of schedule updates, time
extensions & all relevant schedule data
• Interview Project Team to find Key Issues
• Understand the Contract
• Determine Magnitude of Money at Risk
• Decide on Measurement Method(s)

• Present the info clearly & crisply

49
 1995 1996
JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JU N JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB M AR APR M AY

Drywall Subcontractor As-Built Schedule Activities

EXTERI O R CO M PLETE
AS- PLAN N ED ACTI VI TY PRI O R TO FRAM I N G
FO R FLO O RS 5 - 1 0
AS- PLAN N ED ACTI VI TY

AS- BU I LT ACTI VI TY

EIGHTH FLOOR JAN

1995
FEB M AR APR M AY JU N JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN
1d
Dela yed, Disr upte 99 6
Work
FEB M AR APR M AY
EXTERI O R CO M PLETE
(2 0 AS-
) FRAM E IN
PLAN NED
TERI O RVI
ACTI WALLS
TY PRI O R TO FRAM I N G
FO R FLO O RS 5 - 1 0
(2 1 AS-
) FRAM E IN
PLAN NED
TERI O RVI
ACTI CEI LI N G
TY
(3 0 AS-
) DRYWALL WALLS
BU I LT ACTI VI TY 1995 1996
(3 1 ) DRYWALL CEI LI N G S JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JU N JU L AU G SEP O CT N ODela
V DEC JAN
yed, DisrFEB M
upte dAR APR M AY
Work
EXTERI O R CO M PLETE
AS- PLAN N ED ACTI VI TY PRI O R TO FRAM I N G
(4
(2 0
0)) TAPI
FRAM NEGI N
WALLS
TERI O R WALLS FO R FLO O RS 5 - 1 0
AS- PLAN N ED ACTI VI TY
(4 1 ) TAPI N G
(2 1 ) FRAM E I NCEI LI N
TERI OGRSCEI LI N G
AS- BU I LT ACTI VI TY
JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JU N JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB M AR APR M AY
SIXTH FLOOR
(3 0 ) DRYWALL WALLS Dela yed, Disr upted
1
1999
955 1
1999
966
Work
(3 1 ) DRYWALL CEI LI N G S JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JU N JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB M AR APR M AY
(2 0AS-
) FRAM
PLAN E INNED
TERI O RVI
ACTI WALLS
TY
EXTERI O R CO M PLETE
PRI O R TO FRAM I N G
(4 0 ) TAPI N G WALLS FO R FLO O RS 5 - 1 0
LEG EN D
(2 1AS-
) FRAM
PLAN E I N
NM TERI
ED O
ACTIR CEI
VI TYLI N G AS- PLAN N ED (JUN E 1 9 9 4 )
FREDERI
(4 1 ) TAPI N G CEI LI N G S KEL, I N C.
CK EI SWI N
FEDERAL
(3 0AS-
) DRYWALL CO U RTH
WALLS O U SE EI G H TH FLO O R AS- PLAN N ED (M ARCH 1 9 9 5 )
BU I LT ACTI VI TY
REN O , N V AS- PLAN
JAN NAPR
FEB M AR ED Mvs AS-
AY JU1N BU
9 9JU
5 I LT
L AU SCH
G SEP EDULE
O CT N O V DEC JANAS- BU I LT 1 9 9 6
FEB M AR APR M AY
(3 1 ) DRYWALL CEI LI N G S JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JU1
N 9 9JU
5 L AU G SEP O CT N ODela
V DEC JAN
yed, DisrFEB
upte M
1d9AR 6 APR M AY
Work
9
7/ 21/ 95
AS-
(4 0 ) PLAN
TAPI N GN ED ACTI VI TY
WALLS EXTERI O R G LAZ I N G
(2 0 ) FRAM E I N TERI O R WALLS I N STALLED
AS- PLAN N EDLI
ACTI VI TY LEG EN D
(4 1 ) TAPI N G CEI N GS
(2 1 ) FRAMCK
FREDERI E INMTERI OR N
EI SWI CEI LI N GI N C.
KEL, AS- PLAN N ED (JUN E 1 9 9 4 )
AS- BU I LT ACTI VI TY
FEDERAL CO U RTH O U SE JAN
EI G H TH FLO
FEB M AR APR M AY JU N
OR
JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB M AR AS- PLAN N ED (M ARCH 1 9 9 5 )
APR M AY
FOURTH FLOOR
(3 0 ) DRYWALL WALLS
REN O , N V AS- PLAN N ED vs AS- 1
1999
95BU I LT SCH
5 DelaEDULE
yed, Disr upte d Work 119
9996
6 AS- BU I LT

(3 1 ) DRYWALL CEI LI N G S JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JU N JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB M AR APR M AY
(2 0 AS-
) FRAM E IN
NED
TERI O RVI
WALLS EXTERI O R CO M PLETE
PLAN ACTI TY PRI O R TO FRAM I N G LEG EN D
(4 0 ) TAPI N G WALLS
FO R FLO O RS 5 - 1 0
(2 1 AS-
) FRAM E IN
N TERI O RVI
CEI LI N G AS- PLAN N ED (JUN E 1 9 9 4 )
FREDERI CK
PLAN MEDEIACTI
SWI N KEL,
TY I N C.
(4 1 ) TAPI N G CEI LI N G S
FEDERAL CO U RTH O U SE SI XTH FLO O R AS- PLAN N ED (M ARCH 1 9 9 5 )
(3 0 AS-
) DRYWALL WALLS
BU I LT ACTI VI TY
REN O , N V AS- PLAN
JAN NAPR
FEB M AR EDMvs AS-
AY JU1 BU
N9 9JU
5 I LT
L AU SCH
G SEP EDULE
O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB 1
AS- BU I LT
M9AR9 6 APR M AY
(3 1 ) DRYWALL CEI LI N G S JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JU1
N 9 9 JU
5 L AU G SEP O CT N ODela
V DEC JAN
yed, DisrFEB M
upte
1 9AR
d 6 APR M AY
Work
9
AS- PLAN N ED ACTI VI TY
(4
(2 0
0)) TAPI
FRAM NEGI N
WALLS
TERI O R WALLS 9/ 14/ 95
EXTERI O R G LAZ I N G LEG EN D
AS- PLAN N ED ACTI VI TY I N STALLED
(4 1 ) TAPI NEGI N
CEI LI N
OGRS
FREDERI CK MTERI
(2 1 ) FRAM EI SWI NCEI LI N G
KEL, I N C. AS- PLAN N ED (JUN E 1 9 9 4 )
AS- BU I LT ACTI VI TY
FEDERAL CO U RTH O U SE JAN
EI G H TH FLO
FEB M AR APR M AY JU N
OR
JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB M AR
AS- PLAN N ED (M ARCH 1 9 9 5 )
APR M AY
SECOND FLOOR
(3 0 ) DRYWALL WALLS Dela yed, Disr upted
REN O , N V AS- PLAN N ED vs AS- 1
1999
95BU
5 I LT SCH EDULE Work
1
1999
966 AS- BU I LT

(3 1 ) DRYWALL CEI LI N G S JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JU N JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB M AR APR M AY
(2 0AS-
) FRAM
PLAN E INNED
TERI O RVI
ACTI WALLS
TY
EXTERI O R CO M PLETE
(4 0 ) TAPI N G WALLS PRI O R TO FRAM I N G LEG EN D
FO R FLO O RS 5 - 1 0
(2 1 )
FREDERIFRAM CKE I N
NM TERI
EI O R CEI LI N GI N C. AS- PLAN N ED (JUN E 1 9 9 4 )
LISWI N KEL,
AS- PLAN ED ACTI VI TY
(4 1 ) TAPI N
FEDERAL
G CEI
CO U
N GS
RTH O U SE FO U RTH FLO O R AS- PLAN N ED (M ARCH 1 9 9 5 )
(3 0AS-
) DRYWALL WALLS
BU I LT ACTI VI TY
REN O , N V AS- PLAN
JAN NAPR
FEB M AR ED Mvs AS-
AY JU1N BU
9 9 JU
5 I LT
L AU SCH
G SEP EDULE
O CT N O V DEC JANAS- BU I LT
FEB 1 M9AR
9 6 APR M AY
(3 1 ) DRYWALL CEI LI N G S JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JU1
N9 9JU
5 L AU G SEP O CT N ODela
V DEC JAN
yed, DisrFEB
upte M9AR
1d 6 APR M AY
Work
9
AS- PLAN N ED ACTI VI TY
(4 0 ) TAPI N G WALLS 1/ 19/ 96
(2 0 ) FRAM E I N TERI O R WALLS EXTERI OR G LAZ I N G
AS- PLAN N ED ACTI VI TY LEG EN D
I N STALLED
(4 1 ) TAPI N G CEI LI N G S AS- PLAN N ED (JUN E 1 9 9 4 )
(2 1 ) FRAMCK
FREDERI E INMTERI OR N
EI SWI CEI LI N GI N C.
KEL,
AS- BU I LT ACTI VI TY
FEDERAL CO U RTH O U SE JAN
EI G H TH FLO
FEB M AR APR M AY JU N
OR
JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB M AR APR
AS- PLAN N ED (M ARCH 1 9 9 5 )
M AY
FIRST FLOOR
(3 0 ) DRYWALL WALLS
REN O , N V AS- PLAN N ED vs AS- BU I LT SCH EDULE
1995 Dela yed, Disr upte
1d Work
99 6 AS- BU I LT

(3 1 ) DRYWALL CEI LI N G S JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JU N JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB M AR APR M AY
(2 0AS-
) FRAM
PLAN E I NED
TERI O RVI
WALLS EXTERI O R CO M PLETE
(4 0 ) TAPI N GN WALLSACTI TY PRI O R TO FRAM I N G LEG EN D
FO R FLO O RS 5 - 1 0
(2 1AS-
) FRAM
FREDERI CK
PLAN E INM TERI
EI O RVI
SWI NCEI LI N G
KEL, I N C. AS- PLAN N ED (JUN E 1 9 9 4 )
(4 1 ) TAPI N GN ED
CEI ACTI
LI N GS TY
SECO N D FLO O R AS- PLAN N ED (M ARCH 1 9 9 5 )
FEDERAL
(3 0AS-
) DRYWALLCO U RTH O U SE
WALLS
BU I LT ACTI VI TY
REN O , N V AS- PLAN
JAN NAPR
FEB M AR EDMvs AS-
AY JU N BU
JU I LT
L AU SCH
G SEP EDULE
O CT N O V DEC JAN
AS- BU I LT
FEB M AR APR M AY
(3 1 ) DRYWALL CEI LI N G S 1995 1d
Dela yed, Disr upte 99 6
Work

(4 0 ) TAPI N G WALLS
(2 0 ) FRAM E I N TERI O R WALLS
LEG EN D
(4 1 ) TAPI N G CEI LI N G S
(2 1 ) FRAM
FREDERI E IN
CK M TERI ORN
EI SWI CEI LI N G
KEL, I N C. AS- PLAN N ED (JUN E 1 9 9 4 ) 50
FEDERAL CO U RTH O U SE JAN
EI G H TH FLO
FEB M AR APR M AY JU N
OR AS- PLAN N ED (M ARCH 1 9 9 5 )
JU L AU G SEP O CT N O V DEC JAN FEB M AR APR M AY
(3 0 ) DRYWALL WALLS
REN O , N V AS- PLAN N ED vs AS- BU I LT SCH EDULE
1995 AS- BU I LT
1996
(3 1 ) DRYWALL CEI LI N G S
 Key Elements of Cumulative Impact Claims

Cumulative impact is multiplicity of change orders … produce

unforeseeable synergistic effects … Elements of proof are:

1. significantly large number of changes;

2. caused an impact on productivity;

3. impact flows from the synergy of the number and scope of changes;

4. contractor unable at time of pricing each CO to foresee the ripple effect of

changes; and

5. contractor did not knowingly waive right to assert CI claims.

6. reasonable damage estimate substantiated with records or industry studies.

51
 Measuring Loss of Productivity Flowchart

Project change

Productivity loss
- Owner-directed changes
- Recoverable by the contractual terms
No loss claimed No Is the contractor entittled? - Contractual compliance
- The changes caused disruptions
Yes
Quantum of damages

Yes Are the project records sufficient? No

Were physical units

Are industry studies
of worked completed periodically No
available?
recorded?
Was percentage
Yes of work completed periodically Yes
No
Was the recorded?
No
unimpacted period statistically Is the cause compatible
No
significant? with a specialized study?

No
Yes Yes Were sampling studies No
Did owner
statistically adequate?
and contractor cause disruptions Yes
concurrently?
Yes
No Yes Work sampling/ Specialty General Total cost/
Measured Baseline System dynamics Craftsmen industry industry Modified
Earned value
mile productivity modeling questionaire studies studies total cost
Cost-based
Project practice based analyses Industry-based analyses
analyses

52
 Agenda

1. Introductions & goals.

2. The ABC’s of Cumulative Impact and Productivity.

3. Cumulative Impact Legal issues.

4. Different approaches to measuring Cumulative Impact

damages.

5. Discussion, Q & A, Wrap-up.

53
Berkeley Roundtable on International Construction Studies, BRICS

Change and the Loss of

Productivity in
Construction: A Field Guide

Dr. William Ibbs

Caroline Vaughan
Version Date: January 27, 2012

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~ibbs/BRICS/ 54
For any further questions, please contact us:

Dr. William Ibbs

The Ibbs Consulting Group, Inc.

(510) 420-8625

William.Ibbs@IbbsConsulting.com

55