Disruption as Cost Due To Change: Using Access Obligations To Prove Blue Collar Labour Claims
Most disruption claims say very little about what actually changed on site. They talk about loss of productivity in broad terms.
They quote SCL, AACE and case law. They attach a few graphs that show slippage. But when you ask a simple question like “what changed compared to the bargain in the contract”, you’ll often find the answer is vague.
This article looks at a real tunnel project where disruption was presented and valued as a cost due to change. The focus was not on abstract productivity loss. It was on a very simple idea: The contractor priced and planned the work on the basis of a binding access schedule and contract program. The principal did not deliver that access. That is a change. The change has a cost.
The example involves mechanical, electrical and instrumentation works in tunnels, portals, buildings and bridges on a major road project.
All parties are anonymised but the process is real.
Start with entitlement: access as a binding obligation
The starting point in this matter was the contract, not the spreadsheet.
Importantly, the contract contained an access schedule which sat alongside the contract program. The contract also stated that the scope and work under the contract were to be construed consistently with that access schedule and program.
The contract provided that if the access schedule was wrong or changed, and this required a change to the work under the contract, then the contractor was entitled to a variation.
In short, the access schedule and program formed part of the bargain. If access did not follow that bargain, the contractor was not simply “disrupted”, they were being asked to deliver a different job.
The claim was therefore framed as a series of variation entitlements for changed work, rather than a global disruption claim.
Define the change: access that never matched the plan
Once entitlement had been established, the next step was to describe the change in practical terms.
The tunnel works were organised into zones. The access schedule and contract program assumed each tunnel zone would be handed over clear and safe and that handover would follow a defined sequence. It also assumed the contractor would receive a set amount of clear access in front of the work face for production to flow.
The same applied to portal buildings, ventilation facilities, substations and bridges. For each area the access schedule did three things:
fixed the date of handover
set out the condition of handover (complete civil works, clear accesses, barriers in place, ventilation provided, and so on)
confirmed whether access was exclusive or shared.
What actually happened was very different.
Zones were handed over partially complete. Obstructions, temporary works and incomplete civil works blocked access. Road and bridge works required the contractor to vacate areas multiple times each shift. Key structures were not fit for purpose, so equipment could not be installed as planned. Finally, some areas were never available for the single continuous pass assumed in the contract program.
All of this was captured in a simple evidence set that comprised of:
a schedule comparing planned access dates and conditions with actual access
photographs showing obstructions, incomplete works and unsafe or unusable areas
cross reference to the access schedule language that described the clear and safe conditions that should have been provided.
The aim was not to complain about “disruption”, rather to show precisely how the principal’s failure to meet the access obligations forced the contractor to work in a different way.
Break disruption into discrete variation work streams
Rather than one global disruption figure, the additional blue collar costs were grouped into nine variation work streams that aligned with recognisable site activities, including:
damper installation in tunnel smoke ducts and portal ventilation facilities
cable pathways in tunnels and portals
tunnel and portal lighting
intelligent transport systems equipment
local cable rough in from boards and cabinets to field equipment
cable pathways on eastern bridges
cabling and roadway lighting on those bridges
portal fans
portal substations.
For each work stream the narrative followed a consistent pattern.
Background: what the activity was how it was planned to be delivered under the contract program and access schedule how that method tied into the overall delivery strategy.
Basis of variation: specific breaches of the access schedule and failures in design or civil work show those breaches and failures affected the planned sequence why this represented a change to the work under the contract, not just inconvenience.
Scope of variation: what had to be done differently where additional mobilisation, revisits, re work and parallel work fronts were required how long the changed conditions persisted.
Valuation: the additional blue collar labour cost over a defined period for that work stream tied back to accepted contract program hours and priced at contract rates.
In other words, the claim did not say “overall productivity fell by x per cent on the project”. It said “this activity, in these zones, cost more because you changed the way we were able to work”.
Use the contract program as the benchmark for quantum
A key feature of this claim was the use of the contract program as the baseline for labour hours.
There was no dispute between the parties about the planned man hours in the contract program for each activity in each zone.
A concise and effective four-step valuation approach was:
Identify the physical work completed for each activity in each affected zone over the claim period.
Multiply that physical quantity by the planned hours per unit embedded in the contract program.
Compare that benchmark with the actual man hours spent under the changed conditions.
The difference is the additional labour cost due to the change, priced at the agreed labour rates.
This method has several advantages, including anchoring the claim in documents the parties have already accepted, avoiding speculative productivity factors or generic industry curves, and providing a clear link between the changed method of work and the extra hours required.
“The important point is that this was not a theoretical analysis. It was a project-based valuation using the parties own planned hours and actual records, activity by activity.”
Show cause and effect through records, not rhetoric
The strength of the claim sat in the records.
For each variation work stream the contractor and its advisors assembled a consistent set of evidence, featuring contract documents, access records, design document, change documents and more. This allowed the claim to demonstrate causation at a practical level.
Having robust and accurate contemporaneous records helps paint the picture. For example:
Access to a tunnel zone was planned as a clear 240 metre stretch with completed civil works and barriers.
Handover records and photographs showed partial and obstructed access, incomplete civil works and missing elements that were the responsibility of the principal.
As a result the contractor could not follow the planned single pass sequence.
Timesheets showed repeated mobilisation of the same crews back into the same zones to complete scope that should have been done once.
The contract program gave the baseline hours for a single pass.
The difference between baseline and actual hours was the additional cost caused by the change.
The legal analysis of entitlement sat behind this. What carried weight was the simple but very clear story of what actually changed on site and what that change cost.
Conclusion: disruption framed as change
This matter illustrates that disruption does not need to be mysterious.
Starting from clear contractual obligations on access and program, the contractor was able to show that:
the way the work had to be carried out was different to what was agreed
that difference was caused by the other party’s failure to meet those obligations
the additional blue collar labour cost could be valued by comparing actual hours with baseline program hours, activity by activity.
The result was a structured set of variation claims, grounded in evidence, that expressed disruption as cost due to change.
For those preparing or assessing claims on major projects, that is a useful shift. It aligns with how courts and tribunals look at entitlement and quantum. It respects the contract. And it brings the focus back to where it should be:
What did we agree to build, on what basis, and how did your changes affect the way we had to do it and what it cost.
At Accura Consulting, our team of experts work with clients to create a tailored solution to problems. If you have an issue and want expert support, get in touch.
Back to News and Insights
Related News and
Insights from Accura
