DELAYS

&
DELAY ANALYSIS
 DELAYS AND DELAYING EVENTS

Change happens
Events occur that require a Contractors planned intent for
executing the works to be changed.

Delays:
Delay to progress.
Delay to completion.
 CAUSATION

Step 1: (Analysis of Facts)

Identify that an event has occurred.

Step 2: (Analysis of Facts)

Show that the event affects progress of the works.

Step 3: (Delay Analysis)

Demonstrate that this delay to progress causes a delay to
completion.
 TIME EFFECT OF AN EVENT - PLAN

Planned programme:
Accepted programme update
 TIME EFFECT OF AN EVENT - 1

Condition 1:
The event causes no delay to progress and no delay to
completion.
Planned Completion
 TIME EFFECT OF AN EVENT - 2

Condition 2:
The event causes a delay to progress but no delay to completion.

Planned Completion
 TIME EFFECT OF AN EVENT - 3

Condition 3:
The event causes a delay to progress and a delay to completion.

Planned Completion 1

Planned Completion 2
 INTRODUCTION TO DELAY ANALYSIS

Impact of different types of delay event.

Impact of prospective and retrospective perspectives on the
calculation of delay to completion.
Principles of Delay Analysis
COMPONENTS

Programme

Events

Progress Records/As-built

Contract requirements

Other supporting evidence

CHOOSING A METHOD

Seek agreement
What does the contract say?
Likely or Actual delay to completion
Method Specified
What is to be proved?
EOT or compensation or both
What materials are available?
Availability and Integrity of an As-Planned
Programme , progress and/or As-Built Data;
Limitations on budget and time?
Complexity of Works in question
Proportionality
Small disputes do not justify expensive and time
consuming analyses
CONTRACT TERMS

- "If the Contractor is or is likely to be unavoidably delayed in

achieving a completion obligation or milestone ... either
prospectively or retrospectively the time ... shall be extended

- "... an extension of time ... shall be subject to the requirement

that ... the event was the operative cause of the delay suffered
...

Likely to cause delay?

Likely to cause or has caused delay?

Has caused delay?

To what?

In relation to what?
WHAT IS TO BE PROVED

The prospective likely effect on the completion date for the

purposes of an interim EOT
A retrospective actual effect on completion for the purpose of
an EOT
A contemporaneous or retrospective actual effect on progress
for the purposes of compensation for disruption
A retrospective actual effect on the contractors overheads for
the purpose of prolongation
 MATERIALS AVAILABLE

As built records available? Retrospectively

create a CPM
Programme available? programme

As-Planned CPM ? As-

v- Planned
As-Built Impacted

Updated with Retrospectively

Measures the difference progress ? Illustrates the effect of an
create a Event on the chosen
between planned and
actual activity durations simulated as- programme
Recovery or built CPM
acceleration ? programme

Measures the effect of an event on

completion by tracing the critical Measures the effect of an Event on
Time-Impact As-Built But- completion in the sequence of
path through change in intent
For construction finally followed
PROPORTIONALITY

Quick, cheap and tend to be rough

As-planned v as-built
As-planned impacted

Time consuming, costly and tend to be thorough

As-built But-for
Time impact
 METHOD

Disregard labels, identify what is done.

AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03
AACEI RP 29R-03: FORENSIC SCHEDULE
ANALYSIS
Table 1 Nomenclature Correspondence (page 11)

ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES

NOT PREFERENCE OR PREJUDICE!
 METHOD IMPLEMENTATION

AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 Section 3

OBSERVATIONAL
STATIC LOGIC
GROSS1: As-Planned vs As-Built
PERIODIC2: As-Planned vs As-Built (in windows)
DYNAMIC LOGIC
CONTEMPORANEOUS UPDATES: As-Planned vs As-Built in windows
RE-CONSTRUCTED UPDATES: As-Planned vs As-Built in windows
MODELLED
ADDITIVE
SINGLE BASE: Impacted As-Planned
MULTIPLE BASE: Time Impact Analysis / Snapshot
SUBTRACTIVE
SINGLE SIMULATION As-Built But For / Collapsed As-Built
MULTI SIMULATION As-Built But For
PROSPECTIVE V RETROSPECTIVE (WHEN?)

Prospective:
During currency of project
Per SCL Protocol
Contract requirement (e.g. NEC)
Avoid disputes
Retrospective:
During currency of project (after the event)
Claim preparation
Dispute resolution (expert analysis)
PROSPECTIVE V RETROSPECTIVE (HOW?)

Prospective:

Forward looking e.g. As-planned impacted, Time Impact

Retrospective:

Backward looking (e.g. Collapsed as-built, as-planned v as-

built)
AS-PLANNED V AS-BUILT

Many variances of the type

May have a Critical Path network as the as-planned
programme;
May have a reconstructed programme as a baseline
May be carried out in windows or time slices
Simply compares;
Planned programme and as-built programme
Difference = delay & relief from LADs ( EOT)
Often amounts to a total time claim
 AS-PLANNED V AS-BUILT

METHOD:
Prepare an As-Built schedule with same activities as the As-
Planned schedule.
Identify the sequence of activities on the As-Built schedule
which control the overall project duration the Controlling Path.
Identify critical delay by comparing the duration, sequence and
timing of the controlling activities of the As-Planned and As-Built
schedules.
Research evidence to identify causes of the identified critical
delays.
AS-PLANNED V AS-BUILT

Planned bars 1. identify a secondary

effect

2. Infer a primary cause

As built bars DELAY

3. argue that the tertiary

effect has resulted from
the primary cause
AS-PLANNED V AS-BUILT
Advantages
Cheap and quick to carry out
Useful review of delays and possible merits of allegations
Can be an acceptable proof where the effect is indisputably on the
Critical Path, eg;
at the start of the job
at the end of the job
total suspension of the work
Limitations
Only retrospective
Easily manipulated to suit the preferred case
Cannot deal effectively with concurrent causes of delay
Does not calculate the effect of a cause but asserts the cause of
the effect
Not related to the critical path
Does not take account of acceleration or re-sequencing
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED

Based on the planned programme

METHOD:
1.Identify the planned programme/ baseline
2.Establish excusable event based on planned intent
3.Model the event in planning software;
4.Add the event to the programme & recalculate the
completion date
5.Compare revised end date to original end date.
6.Claim relief for the shift in timing on the programme
7.Repeat for next event
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED

1. Start with planned

programme
foundations

Contractual
Completion
Critical Date
structure

roof & cladding

inspections
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED

Period of 2. Identify a causal

Delay
event
foundations

Contractual
Unforeseen ground Completion
Critical Date
structure

roof & cladding

inspections
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED

Primary cause Inferred delay to 3. Calculate effect Revised

progress Completion
Date

foundations

Contractual
Unforeseen ground Completion
Date
structure

roof & cladding

inspections
Causes secondary Causes tertiary effect an
effect a delay to impact on the planned
progress completion date
IMPACTED AS-PLANNED
Advantages
Fairly quick and easy to carry out
Easily understood
It can be used where as-built information is limited/ does not exist
Can be suitable method of proof if:
Project is of simple character
The planned programme was realistic and achievable
The critical path remains largely unchanged except for the effect of
events
Limitations
Ignores the as built history of the works
Cannot deal with concurrency
Ignores the effect of any change in sequence or acceleration
Takes no account of:
Progress
Resources
Changing logic
 AS-BUILT BUT FOR

METHOD:
Remove delays from as-built schedule to ascertain when the
project would have been completed but for these delays.
Gross method remove all at once;
Stepped method remove delays in reverse chronological order.
Also known as Collapsed As-Built.
Performed after the works are completed using as built programme
as baseline
Evaluates effect of Events on the basis of the sequence of work
that was actually followed
Analyses the earliest completion date but-for identified delaying
events
AS-BUILT BUT-FOR

Step 1: Creation of baseline

1. Create/assess as built programme
2. Identify variances between planned & actual performance
& infer cause for each
3. Produce simulated as built programme
Wind back the data-date
Remove the fixed dates
Substitute with planned dates and a logic network

Logic can be based on updated progressed programmes

produced during works
AS-BUILT BUT-FOR

Step 2:

Remove delay events from simulated as-built programme

Remove delaying activities in reverse chronological order &

recalculate completion date
AS-BUILT BUT-FOR

1. identify secondary 2. infer a primary

effect on progress cause
Actual
Original Completion
duration Date
Unforeseen ground

foundations
structure
roof & cladding
inspections
AS-BUILT BUT-FOR

3. Convert to critical
path program
foundations
Actual
Completion
Date
Unforeseen ground

structure

roof & cladding

inspections
AS-BUILT BUT-FOR

Secondary effect - Causes tertiary effect

4. Subtract - delay to completion
delay to progress
identified
foundations effect
Unforeseen ground Earliest
Completion
Reduced to zero days Date
structure

roof & cladding

inspections
AS-BUILT BUT FOR

Strengths
Factually based on actual built times - Easily understood
Can be used where there is no effective planned programme
Demonstrates cause and effect of actual timing of event, in sequence in which
work was actually built
Can be used to demonstrate both
Excusable delay
Compensable delay ie loss and expense was suffered
Takes account of concurrency

Limitations
Complicated
Requires accurate and complete as-built data
Requires logic reconstruction - Inferred logic may be challenged
Subjective?
Takes no account of the planned intent
Does not identify the effect of events on the contractors intention at the time
Cannot deal with re-sequencing or acceleration measures
 TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS

METHOD:
Research details of claimed event causing delay;
Model the event in planning software;
Link event into updated schedule;
Recalculate the critical path & Completion date.
Compare revised end date to updated dated schedule end date;
Repeat for all events in chronological order.
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS

Analysis of the effects of delays

over the life of a project,
sequentially,
In light of the Contractors progress & future
intentions

Update Contractors current planned

programme to period before the Event.

Add Event to programme & calculate effect

upon the planned programme
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS

Preparation:
Identify events & create Fragnet for each event.
List Events chronologically
Identify planned programme current at time of
Event current programme
Check programme reasonable & fit for use as a base-
line
Re-create or review as-built programme.
Assess progress information.
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS

As-planned programme

Contractual
foundations Completion
Critical Date

structure

roof & cladding

inspections
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS

Updated programme Revised Completion

Critical Date after
Update
Slow
Contractual
progress foundations Completion
Critical Date

structure

roof & cladding

Updated
data Progress to activity
inspections
date
Culpable delay to completion
 TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
Revised
Completion
Critical Date
after Update

Contractual
foundations Completion
Critical Date
Unforeseen
ground
structure

Event roof & cladding

Updated
data Progress to activity
inspections
date
Culpable delay to completion
Period of event delay to progress
 TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
Revised
Impacted programme Completion
Critical Date
after Event
Foundations
completed to Remainder of
Contractual
update date foundations
Completion
Critical Date
Unforeseen
ground
structure

Event roof & cladding

Updated
data Progress to activity
inspections
date
Culpable delay to completion
Period of event delay to progress

Period of event delay to completion

TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
Advantages
Cause and Effect
Takes account of Progress/Resource/Logic
Is the most accurate because it uses all planned, progress and as-built information
Takes account of inadequate progress
Takes account of changes in methodology and re-sequencing
Can be used to resolve concurrent delay
Takes account of acceleration
Can deal with multiple Key Dates & Milestones

Limitations:
Requires high quality information
Can be time consuming and expensive
Produces a high volume of output
Complicated (and therefore slow)
Prospective results can be inaccurate
Difficult to communicate (Skanska v Egger [2004])
SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Smoke and mirrors - analysis that is not what it is described to

be by its originator

Found in discrepancy between description of methodology and

that actually adopted
SMOKE AND MIRRORS

As-planned v As-built generally understood

API & ABBF methodologies often understood

Few really understand Time impact analysis

Windows, time impact time slice and snapshot often

used indiscriminately
CONTACT

Toby Hunt
tobyhunt@hillintl.com

www.hillintl.com