Delays in accomplishing a task could lead to the termination of a contract, cancellation of payment, and legal suits which would result in serious losses for the company. The management should, therefore, take the appropriate action to ensure delays are avoided at all costs. Basically, delays lead to changes of schedules, liquidated damages, and frustrations. However, they can be excusable based on unavoidable causes such as weather, labor strikes, and suspension of work by regulatory authorities.
Excusable delays are foreseeable, usually beyond control, and are not as a result of ones’ fault or negligence (Klinger 2007). If that happens, a contractor could be added more time and liquidation charges are not imposed. In the course of their work, project managers should be prepared to handle any form of delays in case they occur. Notably, the excusable delays could be easy to deal with, but the inexcusable ones are costly which implies that they should be avoided at any cost. To avoid a delay, the management should ensure the team members understand their responsibilities before a project starts. Normally, this would need setting up a decision-making structure to allow all stakeholders to proactively participate in the given project. The use of the RACI chart is highly recommended. For this, R means identifying the people responsible for each task, A implies each group is accountable to the project result, C suggests the team needs to consult widely on the fundamental aspect of the project while I is about information sharing and distribution.
Other remedies include recruiting the best personnel for the job, developing the culture of meeting deadlines, instituting a proactive risk and quality management program before, during and after the project, appreciating the existence of the problem, working together as a team, and putting up an effective communication system. Notably, the use of RACI chart is the most effective, together with putting up an effective communication system. However, the appreciation of the problem is an ineffective remedy because it gives a negative impression that delays are inevitable.
The Boston Big Dig project was anticipated to take at least $2.6 billion and the completion date was to be in 1985. However, it would later cost up to $14.6 billion while the time of completion was extended to 2002. Likewise, the construction woks at Denver International Airport would cost more than twice of its original cost while the completion date was extended by six years. In addition, the Virginia Mixing Bowl project was not any different since its completion was extended by at least ten years while the cost shoot up from $241 million to $676 million. Another case is the Kennedy Center parking which was extended to 2003 even though the project started in 1998 at a cost of $28m. In all these, the projects are large and run into millions. The funding was from the public coffers which implies that delays were inevitable because of the politics involved and the presence of so many stakeholders in the decision-making processes. For these, the excusable delay would apply because the government needed more time to consult and put up structures for efficiency. In addition, government workers are likely to go on strike without notice thus a project’s completion might be delayed. Because of unpredictable weather patterns, the government also finds it difficult to predict the exact date of project completion. In some instances, it is forced to adjust the sites’ conditions which definitely lead to delays. When that happens, government contractors find themselves in precarious conditions because of the new conditions forcing them to stop projects and readjust based on the new terms. If a delay occurs, the government is left with no option other than allowing contractors to postpone the entire projects (Keane, Caletka, & Wiley InterScience, 2008). However, a contractor should accept to work with the new terms and not demand extra payment. However, if they are likely to incur losses, the government has to pay more.
- Edwards, C. (2003). Government schemes cost more than promised. Accessed from https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb-0309-17.pdf/
- Keane, P. J., Caletka, A. F., & Wiley InterScience. (2008). Delay analysis in construction contracts. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Klinger M. (2007). A New Era in Standard Form Construction Documents: a Rivalry between the Old Guard American Institute of Architects And An Upstart Consortium Led by the Associated General Contractors of America. Sedgwick: Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP
