Opinion ID: 1041555
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Project Delays

Text: The main project delay concerned the provision of permanent power to the building. In the early stages of the project, Weybosset's existing structures provided temporary power; however, Stonestreet eventually required a permanent power supply to continue work on the project.1 In the construction contract, the parties agreed that [p]rimary service, cable and transformer were excluded from Stonestreet's scope of work, and were thus controlled by Weybosset. At trial, witnesses testified that primary service means permanent power. Stonestreet initially anticipated having permanent power at the project site during the summer of 2008. Power was in fact not supplied at that time, and the delay in supplying permanent power led to delays in, among other things, installation of the mechanical, electrical, and elevator systems. As a result of these 1 Stonestreet's witnesses testified at trial that without delivery of permanent power, Stonestreet could not disconnect any of the old electrical panels, nor could it fully supply power to the renovated building so that it could perform required life safety testing. -4- delays, Stonestreet generated an updated project schedule on October 27, 2008, which reflected a revised completion date of January 28, 2009; at that point, the remaining elements of the project could not be completed without permanent power at the site. Power was ultimately provided on January 6, 2009. In light of these delays, Stonestreet submitted COR 127, which sought an increase in the total GMP of $152,473.20 to cover increased general conditions costs that resulted from the overall project delays. In January 2009, Stonestreet submitted a draft of Requisition 14, which sought payment for December 2008 work as specified in COR 127. At the time of submission, Stonestreet was not advised that it would not be paid for its continued work on the project (as reflected in COR 127), and it continued to install systems once permanent power was supplied to the building. In March and April, Stonestreet twice updated COR 127 to reflect continued project costs; Weybosset did not respond to either submission. On May 29, 2009, Edmund Landry, Weybosset's representative, formally rejected COR 127.