Very interesting aspects to this case: 1) the plaintiff’s expert applied “total cost” methodology vs. “measured mile” (expert did not err in this per judge), 2) the judge found that the subcontractor-plaintiff suffered an “increased workforce” under a “compressed schedule”, 3) judge listed both design problems and project mismanagement as grounds for loss-of-productivity damages, and 4) judge concluded that the no-damages-for-delay provision did not preclude recovery regardless of how damages characterized, i.e., failure to provide time extensions vs. hindrances/interferences.
‘No damages for delay’ clause doesn’t bar recovery | Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly