Disruption is Caused Chaos of the Workflow

Impacts and their resulting delays are specific, singular events of conditions that result in the project completion, contract milestones or one or more work actively starting or completing later than originally planned. Disruptions include the effects of individual or multiple delays, as well as interruptions to the planned method, manner, sequence, and duration of work activities directly and/or indirectly associated with the impacting event. Disruptions usually affect labor productivity and can cause significant cost overrun variances in labor and equipment budgets. Disruptions are often contributing causes to a project delay when the delay-related impacts ripple throughout the project to both the work activities directly changed and the unchanged work not directly affected.

Some possible resulting costs from delays and disruption-caused efficiency loss:

		Extended project management support
		Extended engineering staff
		Extended administrative support
		Extended project and home office overhead, and general conditions costs
		Idle tools and equipment
		Direct costs of the change work directly affected by the delay
		Efficiency decreased due to re-sequencing work or additional work activities in progress at a given time
		Performance extended into a period of adverse weather
		Dilution of supervision due to additional work activities to be manages
		Overcrowding of trades
		Acceleration– premium time/increases in manpower

Some Elements to consider and explore:

		Was timely notice of impacts given?
		Did any of the impacts occur before or after the noticed period?
		Were an accord & satisfaction given on any of the disruptions included?
		Did claimant support its position using only one methodology?
		Was baseline productivity realistic and achievable based on other similar work?
		Did claimant actually compare identical or very similar work?
		Does adequate contemporaneous documentation exist and is it useful?
		Did claimant objectively assess the contemporaneous project data?
		Did the claimant cherry-pick from the best productivity of a "measured mile" analysis?
		Did claimant offer unwarranted extrapolations in its cost estimate? Did claimant misuse any industry studies?
		Is it a total cost claim, and if so, did claimant satisfy the four-part test?
			The impracticality of proving the cost of the "extra work" by other means
			The reasonableness of the contract price
			The reasonableness of the actual costs
			The lack of responsibility for the increased cost of performance
		Were there any underbid items?
		Did the contemporaneous project cost data comport with claimed cost data?