Government Contracting Database

When a contractor is seeking an extension of contract time, for changes and excusable delay, which will relieve it from the consequences of having failed to complete the work within the time allowed for performance, it has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence not only the existence of an excusable cause of delay but also the extent to which completion of the contract work as a whole was delayed thereby. Appeal of Jamco Constructors, Inc., VABCA No. 3271, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26405. Delays which occur in one part of the contract work do not automatically delay subsequent work and therefore the ultimate completion of the project. Subsequent elements of work may be behind schedule for reasons not related to a specific preceding delay, in which case the preceding delay cannot be said to affect the final completion of the contract work. In order to establish entitlement to an extension of time for completion of all work under the contract, Appellant must show more than that delays in one part of the work could have delayed other parts of the work and ultimately the contract completion date. Appeal of Jamco Constructors, Inc., VABCA No. 3271, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26405.

See also AB-Tech Construction, Inc., VABCA No. 1531, 82-2 BCA ¶ 15,897:

There must be evidence to show the objective impact of such cause on the work. In order to be relieved from the consequences of having failed to complete the contract work within the time allowed for performance, the Appellant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence not only the existence of an excusable cause of delay, but also the extent to which completion of the contract work as a whole was delayed thereby.

Updated: August 8, 2018