Differences between corrective action and recovery efforts on a failing project?

It’s a Fine Line: What are the similarities and differences between corrective action and recovery efforts on a failing project? Is recovery actually different from corrective action? Well, yes, and no. Recovery is a specialized application of corrective action with some unique elements. Any input on this is welcome.

Unfortunately (for me) I am a specialist at failed Projects-it has been (for some reason) my career path. Simply put, corrective action (most times) is when interelated trades have problems placing work -contiguous I believe is the legal term-on other peoples work. To illustrate-lets say the concrete sub framed a structure that is 8 inches out of skew and 4 inches out of plumb (this actually is an inherited problem I once received courtesy of a multinational builder). The bricklayer now has to engineer/submit for approval and the rest... customized anchoring systems (that have 6 week lead times) to attach the facade to the structure under these ridiculous (incompetent) circumstances. This is a corrective action. Recovery efforts can run a whole gamut of items from weather related issues to owner- tenant delays change orders etc etc. The similarities--hmmm--boils down to who works for who? This is complicated as it emanates from relationships. For example, if the Owner pours the foundation and the anchor bolts (or whatever) is out of place-this bcomes a "gray" area between corrective and recovery. Flipside, lets say Owner furnishes and installs all of the granite and marble facing in a new beautiful Lobby which you (the GC) poured all of the concrete that is not within tolerance-let the fun begin with chipping hammers and costs/ time piling up and everyone playing the blame game (among numerous expletives). I really need more detail on what the circumstances are on your specific issue to comment any further. Good Luck with your problem John-hope this was helpful.

Three words that I come across regularly are Recovery, Mitigation and Acceleration and they mean differnt thing to each party. Very often Employers complain that the Contractor is failing to Mitigate when what they really mean is that the Contractor is failing to Recover, or, more likely, failing to Accelerate. A good definition of Mitigation is carrying out all necessary measures short of expending extra money. For Recovery, a contractor may decide to expend smaller sums than his obligation for probable damages. Acceleration generally requires an instruction and the Contractor is well advised not to accelerate without one. If the contract contains capped provisions for Delay Liquidated Damages (DLD) then once the cap is reached the Contractor has no further obligations for Recovery or Acceleration. This usually puts the Employer in the position of choosing wheter to return some of the DLDs in exchange for Acceleration or accepting further delays. I hope this helps,