We have been introducing the measured mile approach in proving disruption claim in the past weeks on our LinkedIn page. For this article, we would like to recap and basically, we try to summarize the key points in the simple checklist below to ensure improved chances of success using the measured mile approach to prove disruption claims and claim loss of productivity and damages.
We will use an example to best illustrate our points below. Assuming the Contractor SEGA is an ACMV contractor and has been awarded a project to install 100-meter length of the air duct in a warehouse and the Client is ACME. The warehouse is separated into three separate work areas – Area 51, Area 52 and Area 53 and can be seen in the figure below. The size of each work areas is roughly about the same. In the Contractors’ programme and approved by the Client, the sequence of work is from Area 51 then moving to Area 52 and lastly install ducting to Area 53. Testing & Commissioning is the last activity and can only commence once all the ducting is completely installed for Area 51, Area 52 and Area 53. The total duration of the project is 100 days.
In the contract between the Client and the Contractor, the Client that is that handover of Area 51, Area 52 and Area 53 will be the piecemeal basis, commencing first with Area 51 and lastly with Area 52. And the Contractor complies with this requirement and submits the programme with this sequence of work and subsequently, the programme was approved by the Client. The quantity of scaffolding (non-portable type, heavy-duty) is only adequate for one (1) area.
Works by the Contractor then progresses relatively smoothly, and SEGA managed to complete duct installation at Area 51 on time. SEGA then proceeded with the scaffolding installation for Area 52 in anticipation that the Client will then handover Area 52 on time to SEGA. However, on the day that ACME supposed to handover Area 52 to SEGA, ACME then informed SEGA that Area 53 is ready to be handed over to SEGA and not Area 52. Therefore, SEGA would need to dismantle the scaffolding from Area 51 and move it to Area 53. Further, as the scaffolding is only adequate for one zone, the scaffolding already erected at Area 52 would need to be dismantled and moved to Area 53 instead. Therefore, there is time wasted in moving the scaffolding over a longer distance and also time wasted in dismantling scaffolding already erected at Area 52. Further SEGA then suffers further time loss due to the ducting connection once SEGA completed their work at Area 53. After SEGA completed the ducting work on Area 53, ACME then proceeded to hand over the final zone, Area 52 to SEGA. Due to area work constraint due to the connection of Area 52 ducting to Area 51 ducting and Area 53 ducting, SEGA workers productivity in these connection areas are about half that of ‘normal productivity’.