Abstract
Severe weather conditions can be disruptive to construction. Contractors typically obtain time extensions for weather days beyond normal conditions. However, contracting parties often dispute the extent of weather-related time extensions. Typical industry contracts may overlook many important points that can provide an acceptable resolution. This paper classifies seven factors causing discrepancies in analysis of adverse weather for time extensions; namely, the definition of normal weather, weather thresholds, type of work, lingering days, criteria for lost days, lost days equivalent due to lost productivity, and work days lost versus calendar days lost. An analysis of an actual weather-caused delay claim illustrates the impacts of those factors on the outcomes of the analysis. A contract should define anticipated weather delay days and their lingering days and provide threshold values for weather parameters to differentiate between predictable and unpredictable severe weather. The contract should clearly define how a time extension is granted in calendar days as a result of work days lost, and also address how a time extension is granted due to inefficiency caused by unusually severe weather. Future research may provide an appropriate mechanism for analyzing equivalent lost days to account for lost productivity.