Abstract
This paper focuses on the subject of concurrent delay from a general contractor (GC)-subcontractor perspective. When there is a concurrent delay by multiple subcontractors, or between the GC and other subcontractor(s), there has not been a uniform approach as to how the liquidated damages are apportioned. Previous research seems to ignore this issue. This paper first reviews some relevant court cases. Using a warehouse project as a case study, it then examines different practices that the GC could take in apportioning damages of concurrent delays to both himself/herself as well as to the responsible subcontractors. Results are very inconsistent between and within the apportionment practices. This supports an alternative hypothesis that apportionment is an important issue. Practitioners should specify which apportionment practice will be used and under what circumstances it will be applied in their subcontracts. Researchers may develop a more consistent and reliable approach for this type of apportionment.