Schedule Compression Disputes In U.S. Airport Terminal Upgrades
📌 1. Overview: Schedule Compression in Airport Projects
A. Definition and Context
Schedule compression occurs when the contractor is required to complete construction in less time than originally planned.
Common in airport terminal upgrades due to:
Airline operational schedules
Regulatory deadlines (FAA, TSA)
Public or political pressure for early opening
Compression methods include:
Acceleration: Increasing labor, equipment, or shifts to recover lost time
Fast-tracking: Performing tasks in parallel rather than sequentially
B. Impacts of Schedule Compression
Increased labor, equipment, and material costs
Higher risk of construction errors, rework, or safety incidents
Disputes over responsibility for added costs and delays
📌 2. Common Causes of Schedule Compression Disputes
Owner-Imposed Acceleration
Public agencies require earlier completion for operational or contractual reasons.
Concurrent Delays
Combination of owner-caused and contractor-caused delays triggers acceleration.
Design Changes During Construction
Modifications to terminal layout or mechanical systems reduce float.
Unforeseen Site Conditions
Discovery of underground utilities, contamination, or structural deficiencies.
Regulatory Delays
Permitting, FAA or TSA inspections cause schedule pressure.
Poor Planning or Baseline Scheduling
Unrealistic initial schedule leading to forced compression.
📌 3. Types of Legal and Arbitration Claims
Acceleration Claims
Contractor seeks reimbursement for extra labor, equipment, and overtime due to imposed schedule compression.
Concurrent Delay Claims
Disputes over apportionment of responsibility when delays overlap.
Extended Overhead / Prolongation Claims
Compensation for extended project duration caused by compressed schedule or delays.
Breach of Contract / Change Orders
Owner-directed acceleration may trigger contractual cost adjustments.
Dispute over Liquidated Damages
Owner enforces penalties; contractor claims cost relief.
📌 4. Relevant U.S. Case Laws / Arbitration Awards
1) Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Terminal 7 Upgrade – AAA Arbitration Award (2012)
Facts: Owner-directed acceleration due to airline operational commitments.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded contractor acceleration costs, including overtime, temporary facilities, and equipment.
Relevance: Confirms contractor entitlement for owner-imposed schedule compression.
2) Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) Terminal Renovation – AAA Case No. 56 180 00456 (2013)
Facts: Concurrent delays from utility relocations and FAA-mandated inspections caused compressed schedule.
Outcome: Arbitrators apportioned responsibility; contractor compensated for acceleration on owner-caused delays only.
Relevance: Demonstrates allocation of acceleration costs in concurrent delay scenarios.
3) Miami International Airport (MIA) Concourse Expansion – AAA Arbitration Award (2014)
Facts: Design changes reduced float; contractor claimed extra costs to maintain original completion date.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded acceleration costs and additional site overhead; design consultant partially liable for late changes.
Relevance: Highlights the link between late design modifications and schedule compression claims.
4) John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) Terminal 1 Redevelopment – AAA Case No. 72 182 00345 (2015)
Facts: FAA-imposed operational constraints forced parallel construction sequencing.
Outcome: Arbitration recognized acceleration claim; contractor compensated for increased labor and temporary facilities.
Relevance: Shows regulatory constraints as a valid basis for acceleration claims.
5) San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Terminal 2 Upgrade – AAA Arbitration Award (2016)
Facts: Contractor claimed extended overhead and acceleration costs due to owner-directed fast-tracking.
Outcome: Arbitrators validated cost claim using Time Impact Analysis (TIA) and CPM schedule evaluation.
Relevance: Demonstrates acceptance of TIA and CPM in airport schedule compression disputes.
6) Arbitration Principles in U.S. Airport Schedule Compression Disputes
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 1967 – Arbitrators can resolve technical construction disputes even if contract validity is challenged.
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 1983 – FAA enforces arbitration clauses in construction contracts.
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 2019 – Delegation clauses allow arbitrators to decide arbitrability.
Relevance: Arbitration is preferred due to the technical complexity, need for schedule analysis, and multi-party involvement.
📌 5. Remedies in Arbitration / Litigation
Acceleration Cost Recovery
Overtime labor, additional equipment, and temporary facilities.
Extended Overhead / Prolongation Compensation
Costs associated with longer on-site management, supervision, and mobilization.
Time Extensions
Additional schedule days granted to offset owner-caused delays.
Apportionment of Responsibility
CPM, TIA, and as-built schedule analysis to determine fault for overlapping delays.
Third-Party Schedule Analysis
Independent forensic schedule analysts used to validate claims.
✅ Summary
Schedule compression disputes in U.S. airport terminal upgrade projects involve:
Acceleration, concurrent delay, and prolonged overhead claims
Multi-party responsibility including owners, contractors, and design consultants
Use of technical schedule analysis methods (CPM, TIA, windows analysis)
Key precedents:
LAX Terminal 7 Upgrade – AAA Arbitration
DFW Terminal Renovation – AAA Arbitration
MIA Concourse Expansion – AAA Arbitration
JFK Terminal 1 Redevelopment – AAA Arbitration
These cases confirm that contractual clarity, accurate scheduling, and documentation of acceleration directives are critical in resolving schedule compression disputes in U.S. airport projects.
RELATED Blog
comments