Streim v. Crandler Park

The following narrative depicts CSMI construction claim analysis. No names in this narrative are those of actual companies, organizations or corporations.

Streim, LLC entered into three contracts with Crandler Park School District (“Crandler Park”) to perform site work, underground utilities, concrete and paving work in three phases for the $93 million high school project. The dispute between Streim and Crandler Park became apparent during Phase III contract performance, although it involved unresolved issues from Phases I and II.


Crandler Park filed a claim against Streim, LLC for completion and/ or remediation of Streim’s work including sidewalks, paving, site work, soil transport, general concrete defects, grading and excavating, utilities, temporary pond, and other miscellaneous work. Crandler Park claimed over $2 million in damages.


Streim, LLC filed counterclaim for schedule delay and nonpayment, claiming that Streim was delayed by Crandler Park. Streim claimed $1.1 million in damages as a result of delay combined with outstanding unpaid balance on Streim’s completed contract work.


NW Specialty Ins. Co provided bond on behalf of Streim, LLC for Phase III. NW Specialty Ins. Co retained a national construction expert to assist them in sorting out Crandler Park claim and to assist in Streim’s counterclaim. The final work product of that expert was unsatisfactory to NW Specialty Ins. Co. As a result, CSMI was hired to perform an independent evaluation of Crandler Park claim and Streim’s counterclaim.


CSMI scope of services included analysis of claims and counterclaims pertaining to sidewalks, paving, site work, soil handling and transport, general concrete defects, grading and excavating, catch basins and temporary pond, and miscellaneous work. While CSMI was hired to evaluate Phase III contract work only, it ended evaluating all phases of the work to segregate Phase III contract work. Segregation of Phase III work was necessary due to poor contract management, no clear delineation between phases in contractor’s billing and performance of the work, and major changes in the scope of work within phases initiated by the owner, and by addition of Phase IV work.


CSMI evaluated Crandler Park to determine whether the claim was valid, whether the value of the claim was substantiated and reasonable, and to allocate claims against phases of the work as each phase was bonded by different bonding company.


CSMI analyzed Streim counterclaim for schedule delays, quantified and allocated delay damages. CSMI evaluated extra work performed by Streim to determine the contract balance and to calculate amount owed to Streim by Crandler Park.


CSMI scope of services further included assessment of whether claims or counterclaims may be subcontractor related or caused. And lastly, CSMI was retained to evaluate overhead, acceleration, suspension, interference, scope changes, contract requirements, design and specifications, and outside influences.


CSMI prepared a report of findings, provided consultation regarding validity of the claim, and provided expert witness consultation and presentation at mediation.


Detailed analysis for key individual section:

  • Review Crandler Park claim, Streim counterclaim, Streim’s project file, the previous Streim expert’s work product, and Crandler Park and Streim project documents.
  • Index of the production documents and selection of relevant documentation to substantiate Crandler Park’s claim and Streim’s counterclaim.
  • Review of Streim’s contract documents for understanding of Streim’s scope of work. The selected documents were sorted and assembled into issue notebooks. The information from the issue notebooks was analyzed to determine whether Crandler Park claim and Streim counterclaim were substantiated.
  • Analysis of the Crandler Park claim for substantiation included review of the repair/ follow- on contractors’ contracts, change orders, purchase orders, invoices, daily reports, work orders, photos, and other relevant documents to determine what costs were supported with sufficient documents.
  • Evaluation of the Streim counterclaim for substantiation included two separate analysis: 1) Review of Streim claim for delay whether it was valid- reviewed invoices, statements, calculations of extended home office overhead claim, calculation for extended field cost claim, calculations for escalation claim, interest and other damages calculations, and working out of sequence claim calculations; and 2) evaluate Streim’s work completed until its termination to determine the balance of the unpaid contract work.
  • Analysis of Streim’s claim for delay – developed as-built schedule using Streim and Streim’s subcontractors daily reports, extra work authorization sheets, and time cards..
  • Schedule delay analysis to quantify delays, to determine who caused delays, and to allocate delays to responsible parties.
  • For the non-payment part of Streim claim, evaluation of the unapproved/ disputed Streim payment applications to determine what items are being disputed and what needs to be done to provide evidence of the work performed for each disputed item.
  • Analysis of concrete work to determine how much of the contract work related to concrete was completed by Streim; what change orders were issued to Streim that added/ changed concrete work scope; and reconciliation of the findings with what concrete is claimed by Crandler Park that was repaired and completed by follow-on contractors.
  • Analysis of paving work – performed the same analysis as the ones for the concrete work described in the paragraph above.
  • Analyze site grading work – performed the same analysis as the ones for the concrete and paving work described in the paragraphs above.
  • Analysis of excessive soils to determine what soils Streim was responsible for per the contract, how unit rates for excessive soils were applied, what soils were stockpiled, what excessive soils were hauled away, etc.
  • Prepare a report of findings and recommendations.


Comments are closed.