It is generally accepted that Modified Total Cost (MTC) and the Mechanical Contractors Association of America’s (MCAA) Labor Productivity Factors represent two different approaches for quantifying loss of labor productivity in construction claims. Yet the requirements for properly applying MCAA Factors, as defined by MCAA, appear to be, in many respects, the same as those established by the courts for MTC. Specific examples include: (1) that no “superior” method (e.g. the “measured mile”) is possible; (2) that the contractor’s bid was reasonable; (3) that the contractor’s actual costs were also reasonable; and (4) that contractor caused inefficiencies have been fully accounted for and excluded from the analysis. MCAA even goes so far as to recommend that an MTC analysis be performed to validate the results derived using MCAA Factors.
Since research suggests that both methods have relatively low litigation success rates when compared to “superior” approaches, our panel will discuss whether there any advantages to selecting or using an MCAA Factors approach over MTC, or vice versa. This discussion will also address whether the two approaches are in fact different from one another, best practices, and common errors in application.
Speakers
- Alexandra Elena Busch, Attorney, Cozen O’Connor
- David W. Halligan, Managing Director, Ankura
- Christopher M. Sweeney, Contract Specialist
Moderator
- Megan Wells, Managing Director, Ankura
Cosponsored with the ABA Section of Litigation Construction Litigation Committee.
