Guild of Project Controls: Compendium | Roles | Assessment | Certifications | Membership

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

delay claims that push into winter - does the party responsible have to pay for the Winter Ripple effect also?

4 replies [Last post]
John Reeves
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 17 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 10 May 2013
Posts: 337
Groups: None

delay claims that push into winter - does the party responsible have to pay for the Winter Ripple effect also?  For example, with a bridge deck - original pour in October, owner delay causes pour in November, the deck requires a coating that has a spec requireing 50 degrees and rising - which will not be until Spring, so does the owner have to pay "delay costs, ie overhead" the 3-4 winter months also?  I assume in hot locations mayber there is a "not summer" equivalaent - I have mainly worked in cold climates.


Cletus Adams
User offline. Last seen 2 years 28 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 28 Oct 2012
Posts: 3
Groups: None

Hi John,

I am trying to understand the query, however, if the contractor fails to comply with the project specifications/requirements any delay caused in this regard will be the contractor's responsibility. Also, if there was a constructability issue that could be beyond the contractor's control then the contractor will be entitled to an extension of time. But if a concurrent delay is established, the delay may be considered as excusable non-compensable to which the contractor is granted additional time without cost implications to the client. 

Zoltan Palffy
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 13 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 3088
Groups: None

If the owner casued the delay into the winter months then yes he would be responsible for the extended ovehead for the time frame that was extened. However during the winter months you can possibly reduce the staff and have a lower cost for on site staff. The trailers and such will be part of the extneded overhead and general conditions.

Yes there is a hot temperate weather high ambient temperature condition as well. For eaxmple pouring of concrete in the summer in let's say Arizona is usually done during the night because it the temperature is too hot in the day. If it is too hot it will no permit the concrete to hydrate slowly becuase all of the water is being sucked out of it and will cure too fast resulting in a loss of strength.

Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 29 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 5206

Delay Caused by Inclement Weather | Damages | Common Law


The extension of time claimed by the contractor was 17-1/2 weeks which included 3 weeks consequential delay due to the concreting works being delayed into the winter. The court awarded the contractor the additional time for the consequential delay caused by winter working as well as financial damages to reimburse the extra cost incurred by the contractor due to concreting in the winter.

A contractor who accepts the risk of weather conditions does so only for those conditions implied by the contract period.  Delays caused by inclement weather within an extended period, or where a dry season job is delayed into a wet season job, are generally not risks which the contractor has agreed to undertake. They should be treated as part of the effects of a primary excusable / compensable event for which there are entitlements to extended time and/or compensation. All perhaps commonsense to some, but it is surprising how many contract administrators do not understand these concepts.

On the other hand in the tropics "winter" weather is good for concreting.


John Reeves
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 17 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 10 May 2013
Posts: 337
Groups: None

I don't know how to edit the original post:  Schedule would have showed coating and project coating and completion in the fall in the example, but pushed to spring due to spec or constructability issue. Conversely - the exponential winter days would be on the contractor if it was their delay - correct?  And of concurrent - then the contractor gets the extension but has to pay for the overhead themsselves I assume.