This case study concerns claims support for a specialist interior linings subcontractor engaged to deliver the ceilings and partitions package on an industrial/logistics development at Wacol, Queensland. The subcontract scope included framing, plasterboard linings and setting across multiple zones, including Office 1, Office 2, dock offices, truck amenities, a pump room and common areas. The works were priced on a fixed lump sum basis and were to be delivered within a short, defined construction window of 60 workdays, with resources planned accordingly.
The works did not proceed in the orderly sequence contemplated by the subcontract programme. Early commencement was delayed, access to work areas was repeatedly restricted or withdrawn, and critical areas were not made weather-tight in time to allow linings and setting to progress. Design and procurement information required to complete doors and associated hardware was also issued late, resulting in re-work and out-of-sequence completion. In parallel, service clashes and scope growth drove variations and additional quality requirements, while overcrowding and stacking of trades reduced productivity and increased supervision effort. The subcontractor documented these impacts through 23 distinct Notices of Delay issued by work area, supported by contemporaneous site records.
Build Conex’s role was to convert the project record into a coherent, contract-aligned extension of time and disruption claim capable of withstanding scrutiny. The analysis was prepared retrospectively, focusing on demonstrable contemporaneous evidence. Delay events were mapped by work area using the Notices of Delay and supporting correspondence, photographs and meeting records. Labour deployment and productivity impacts were quantified using electronic time-logging data (Employment Hero), enabling a planned-versus-actual assessment of labour hours and staffing continuity.
The valuation methodology compared the tender staffing plan and allowances against the actual hours and extended duration required to complete the works. This captured the cost consequences of mobilisation/demobilisation cycles, additional supervision and administration, equipment and site overheads, and other time-related costs attributable to the changed delivery conditions. The deliverable was structured to present entitlement and causation clearly, with exhibits supporting each delay/disruption head of claim.
The claim position sought an extension of time of 69 workdays and delay/disruption for the assessed claim period as presented in the claim package. The underlying record demonstrated a substantial divergence from the original 60-workday plan, including fragmented access and the need to return to site after the bulk of the works were completed to close out remaining items and variations.
