Abstract:
It is not off beam to contend that concurrent delays are a contentious arena in construction claims where anecdotal experience-based approach has been evident among the practitioners. Assessing concurrent delay in relation to extension of time and delay damages is often complicated. The aim of the research is to recognize an industry-accepted precedent as to concurrent delays, from the quantity surveyor perspective. The objectives are to identify the ‘evaluators’ view on concurrent delay as a ‘phenomenon’ in the construction industry, gauge the industry practitioner’s view on the treatment on concurrent delay in terms of ratifying time extension and prolongation costs and finally to see whether a consensus is truly available. The authors in this paper offer a key insight into claims using a quantitative approach by effectively recommending a convincing solution in terms of either yes or no. This is done by encapsulating a concurrent delay scenario and asking consulting quantity surveyors to add their experience and offer their views through fully structured questionnaires. The questions were to examine, whether there exists a concurrent delay, time is excusable so that concurrent delay period once identified is added to the period of extension and finally, whether the costs on prolongation due to concurrent delays are compensable. Binomial distribution is used to model the probability and gauge the perception where a series of discrete trials in this research was conducted and each individual trial had either agreement or otherwise. In this way, a new insight into the attitudes of ‘evaluators’ to claims is obtained and common areas of agreement and disagreement are identified. It was found that claims consultants have a greater appreciation of the ways in which claims are eventually settled. Further, the authors have noted that assessing concurrent delay is often problematic. There is no single accepted definition of concurrent delay.