Using Measured Mile to Prove Disruption Claims

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’.

  • Clearly identify work areas that were disrupted – The first area of disruption occurred when Area 53 was handed over to SEGA instead of Area 52 and SEGA required to dismantle the scaffolding from Area 52 and to Area 53 instead and productivity of scaffolding erection due to moving scaffolding from Area 51 to Area 53 instead of Area 52. The second disruption occurs when at the final stage during the duct connection works at the interface area between Area 51 and Area 52 and between Area 52 and Area 53 when the productivity for the ducting connection is much lower than normal.
  • Clearly identify the cause of disruption – 1st Cause was the sequence of handing over by Client and 2nd Cause was an indirect one in which ducting connection which would not have happened if ACME handed over the area according to the Contract.

  • Have accurate daily records of the number of manhours worked on areas that were disrupted – SEGA must have daily records of manhours for scaffolding workers and also ducting workers and this must be verified end of the day or the beginning of the following day.

  • Have accurate daily records of productivity on areas that were disrupted prior to disruption and after disruption – SEGA must have daily records of manhours and also productivity for Area 51 for both scaffolding workers and also for ducting workers as Area 51 is the area without any disruption and would provide the “Baseline Data” for measured mile analysis. As for areas of disruption, SEGA must have daily records of manhours and also productivity for scaffolding and ducting works for Area 52 and Area 53.

  • Clearly identify periods of disruption – Periods of disruption must be clearly identified throughout the project from the beginning right till the end.

  • Ensure prompt notification on disruption and on-time notification – Refer to Contractual Clause for proper notification of Potential Delay / Delay in order not to be time-barred. Also, the end of delay due to disruption must also be identified.

  • To show mitigation – Any mitigation efforts by the contractor to prevent or to reduce the delay need to be informed to the Client. Refer to Contractual clauses if mitigation efforts (whether it is successful or not) is a condition precedent to the entitlement of claim.

Using Measured Mile to Prove Disruption Claims

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’.

  • Clearly identify work areas that were disrupted – The first area of disruption occurred when Area 53 was handed over to SEGA instead of Area 52 and SEGA required to dismantle the scaffolding from Area 52 and to Area 53 instead and productivity of scaffolding erection due to moving scaffolding from Area 51 to Area 53 instead of Area 52. The second disruption occurs when at the final stage during the duct connection works at the interface area between Area 51 and Area 52 and between Area 52 and Area 53 when the productivity for the ducting connection is much lower than normal.
  • Clearly identify the cause of disruption – 1st Cause was the sequence of handing over by Client and 2nd Cause was an indirect one in which ducting connection which would not have happened if ACME handed over the area according to the Contract.

  • Have accurate daily records of the number of manhours worked on areas that were disrupted – SEGA must have daily records of manhours for scaffolding workers and also ducting workers and this must be verified end of the day or the beginning of the following day.

  • Have accurate daily records of productivity on areas that were disrupted prior to disruption and after disruption – SEGA must have daily records of manhours and also productivity for Area 51 for both scaffolding workers and also for ducting workers as Area 51 is the area without any disruption and would provide the “Baseline Data” for measured mile analysis. As for areas of disruption, SEGA must have daily records of manhours and also productivity for scaffolding and ducting works for Area 52 and Area 53.

  • Clearly identify periods of disruption – Periods of disruption must be clearly identified throughout the project from the beginning right till the end.

  • Ensure prompt notification on disruption and on-time notification – Refer to Contractual Clause for proper notification of Potential Delay / Delay in order not to be time-barred. Also, the end of delay due to disruption must also be identified.

  • To show mitigation – Any mitigation efforts by the contractor to prevent or to reduce the delay need to be informed to the Client. Refer to Contractual clauses if mitigation efforts (whether it is successful or not) is a condition precedent to the entitlement of claim.

Using Measured Mile to Prove Disruption Claims

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’.

  • Clearly identify work areas that were disrupted – The first area of disruption occurred when Area 53 was handed over to SEGA instead of Area 52 and SEGA required to dismantle the scaffolding from Area 52 and to Area 53 instead and productivity of scaffolding erection due to moving scaffolding from Area 51 to Area 53 instead of Area 52. The second disruption occurs when at the final stage during the duct connection works at the interface area between Area 51 and Area 52 and between Area 52 and Area 53 when the productivity for the ducting connection is much lower than normal.
  • Clearly identify the cause of disruption – 1st Cause was the sequence of handing over by Client and 2nd Cause was an indirect one in which ducting connection which would not have happened if ACME handed over the area according to the Contract.

  • Have accurate daily records of the number of manhours worked on areas that were disrupted – SEGA must have daily records of manhours for scaffolding workers and also ducting workers and this must be verified end of the day or the beginning of the following day.

  • Have accurate daily records of productivity on areas that were disrupted prior to disruption and after disruption – SEGA must have daily records of manhours and also productivity for Area 51 for both scaffolding workers and also for ducting workers as Area 51 is the area without any disruption and would provide the “Baseline Data” for measured mile analysis. As for areas of disruption, SEGA must have daily records of manhours and also productivity for scaffolding and ducting works for Area 52 and Area 53.

  • Clearly identify periods of disruption – Periods of disruption must be clearly identified throughout the project from the beginning right till the end.

  • Ensure prompt notification on disruption and on-time notification – Refer to Contractual Clause for proper notification of Potential Delay / Delay in order not to be time-barred. Also, the end of delay due to disruption must also be identified.

  • To show mitigation – Any mitigation efforts by the contractor to prevent or to reduce the delay need to be informed to the Client. Refer to Contractual clauses if mitigation efforts (whether it is successful or not) is a condition precedent to the entitlement of claim.