Methods of Delay Analysis Used to Establish the Contractors Entitlement to an Extension of Time

Methods of Delay Analysis Used to Establish the Contractors Entitlement to an Extension of Time

Delays not attributable to the Contractors actions in a construction project can result a number of potential problems such as late completion, lost productivity, acceleration cost, increased costs, and contract even contract termination. The Contractor needs to realise that the Employer is responsible under the Contract for these delays and establish his entitlement to an extension to the time for completion as a result of these events in order to recover time and cost under the provisions of the Contract.

There are four main methods that can be adopted by the Contractor and which in the correct circumstances accepted as accepted methods of establish the delays resulting from a relevant delay event. They are (1) the time Impact As-Planned Analysis method, (2) the Time Impact Analysis method, (3) the As-Planned Versus As-Built method, and (4) the Collapsed As-Built Analysis method. These are further explored below:

Impacted As-Planned

The impacted As-planned method of delay analysis is a technique which forecasts or predicts a delay’s effect on a project’s completion date. This delay analysis method involves the insertion or addition of activities representing delays or changes into the baseline programme to determine the impact of those delay activities. Use of the impacted As-planned programme analysis method is generally restricted to the quantification of delays for contemporaneous requests for time extensions.

Implementation of the impacted As-planned delay analysis involves identifying project delays or changes and then inserting or adding activities, which represent these delays or changes, into the baseline construction programme. The resulting programme demonstrates the effect of the delays or changes on a project’s completion date.

Time Impact Analysis

The time impact analysis method of delay evaluation is a technique similar to the impacted As-planned analysis above, which forecasts or predicts the delaying events effect on a project’s completion date. This programme analysis method involves the insertion or addition of activities indicating delays or changes into an updated programme representing progress up to the point when a delay event occurred to determine the impact the relevant delay event has on activities.

Implementation of a time impact delay analysis involves identifying project delays or changes, and then inserting or adding activities which represent the delays or changes into the updated programme representing job progress just prior to the occurrence of a delay event. The resulting programme demonstrates the effect of the delay event on the overall project completion date.

As-Planned Versus As-Built

The As-Planned versus As-Built programme delay analysis is a retrospective method which involves comparing the baseline programme, or As-Planned, construction programme against the eventual As-built programme or a programme that reflects progress through a particular point in time. This analysis method is typically utilized where reliable baseline and As-built programme exists, but the intermediate programme updates issued during the execution of the Works either do not exist or are considered flawed to the extent that they are not reliable to support a delay analysis. This method is suitable where the Contractors intermediate update programmes have been constantly disputed or contested by the Contract Administrator but there were no objects to the ignition construction programme.

Implementation of the As-planned versus As-built programme delay analysis can vary from a simple graphical comparison to a more sophisticated implementation which considers the start and finish dates and relative sequences of the various programme activities. As an example, linear construction projects, such as road or pipeline construction project with discrete delay issues, may use a simpler implementation of the As-planned versus As-built programme analysis.

A more sophisticated implementation of the As-planned versus As-built programme analysis methodology compares the start and finish dates, durations, and relative sequences of the activities and seeks to determine the root causes of each variance. The complexity of the implementation generally depends on the nature and complexity of both the project and the issues being evaluated.

Collapsed As-Built

The collapsed As-built delay analysis methodology is a retrospective technique that begins with the As-built programme and then subtracts activities representing delays or changes to demonstrate the effect on the completion date of a project but for the delay or change. Generally, this method is applied in cases where reliable As-built Programme information exists, but baseline programme and/or contemporaneous programme updates either do not exist or are flawed to the extent that they are not reliable to support a delay analysis.

Implementation of the collapsed As-built delay analysis involves identifying project delays or changes, and then subtracting activities representing these delays or changes from the As-built construction programme. The resulting “collapsed As-built” programme demonstrates when a project would have been completed but for the delays or changes; demonstrating the effect of the delays or changes on a project’s completion date.

This method is favoured by many contractors as it does away with arguments over suitability or otherwise of the earlier programmes and is easily understood by all parties which is beneficial in the event that a third-party is required to finally determine the delay. It should be noted however that this method cannot be adopted until the project has been completed as it is based completely on the As-Built Programme so is unsuitable for substantiation of delays during the earlier periods of the Works.

After considering the four methods as described above it is clear that the selection of the most appropriate method of delay analysis will depend on many considerations but clearly As-Built methods of determining are difficult to carry out during the physical execution of the Works and thus Contractors normally submit their initial Delay Claims based on the Time Impact Analysis method. Where claims are submitted later on or the Contractor is seeking review by the Contract Administration then the Collapse As-built Analysis method appears to be favour but again it is important that all relevant facts are considered by the Contractor before opting to adopt a delay analysis method.

MALCONLAW 2011