methods of delay analysis

Methods of Delay Analysis Requirements and Developments

Katrin EndersHill International, London UKFrankfurt, 29 September 2015

OVERVIEW

Overview – Definition Forensic Schedule Analysis

Approach – Delay Analysis Methodologies pro & cons

Findings – Choosing a methodology, Fact is King, Guidance

Conclusions

2

“‘Beware the dark arts’ was the sage advice of AlbusDumbledore to the young Harry Potter. Besides budding wizards, construction clients (at the project or dispute resolution stages), contractors and lawyers would be equally well served by this

advice when it comes to the difficult subject of delay analysis"...“delay analysis like Lord Voldamort, comes in many guises and it seems there is a spell for every circumstance. ‘What would you like conjured … err … proven, sir? Let me just mix up

some ‘fragnets’, ‘lags’, eye of newt and … hey presto!’”

OVERVIEW – DEFINITION

3(cited: BEWARE THE DARK ARTS! DELAY ANALYSIS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH RELIANCE ON TECHNOLOGY, David Barry, 2009 )

• FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS

• “… refers to the study and investigation of events using CPM or other recognized schedule calculation methods for potential use in a legal proceeding.”

• “… the study of how actual events interacted in the context of a complex model for the purpose of understanding the significance of a specific deviation or series of deviations from some baseline model and their role in determining the sequence of tasks within the complex network.”

(cited: AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 29R‐03 FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS TCM Framework)

OVERVIEW – DEFINITION

4

APPROACH

Overview – Definition Forensic Schedule Analysis and Nomenclature



Conclusions

5

APPROACH – DELAY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES

6

TWOTypes

FOURCategories*

TWOTypes

FOURCategories*

* See for example the Society of Construction Law “Protocol on Delay and Disruption”, or Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering Recommended Practice No.29R-03 “Forensic Schedule Analysis”

• As‐planned versus As‐built

• As‐Built But For

LOOKING BACKLOOKING BACK

Retrospective Analyses

LOOKING FORWARDLOOKING FORWARD

Prospective Analyses

• Time‐Impact Analysis

• Impacted As‐planned

• is the most basic method of analysis• is observational – no changes are made to the programme• straightforward comparison between the planned vs the actual performance of the work

• can only be carried out retrospectively (requires as‐built programme/or at least the overall as‐built completion date)

7

Strengths Weakness• is very simple and therefore

easy to understand• can be performed with

rudimentary base data (e.g. when detail and logic of the as‐planned programme is unavailable,and no detailed progress records other than the overall as‐built programme are available)

• Static critical path• fails to fulfil the fundamental

requirement to demonstrate the causal link between a delay event and its alleged effect

• does not deal adequately with concurrent delay

APPROACH – AS‐PLANNED VS AS‐BUILT (APAB)

Claim

Planned CP

TimescaleActivities

As‐built CP

Compare As‐Planned vs As‐Built

(delays)

Contractual Completion

Date

Actual Completion Date

(delays and disruptions)

APPROACH – AS‐PLANNED VS AS‐BUILT (APAB)

APPROACH – IMPACTED AS‐PLANNED (IAP)

9

• is a prospectivemethodology • delay effect is measured by imposing events on a model of the original programme (Baseline)

• does not rely on any actual progress that has been made• requires a robust and reliable original programme that reflects the indented sequence and the Scope of Work

Strengths Weakness• relatively simple to carry out and

to understand• No as‐built required (likely choice

when planned programme is available, no significant changes in the sequence during the project execution, few delaying events, and when there is little or no progress records)

• cannot be used for complex projects• used to quantify potential delays rather

and actual • concurrent delays easily overlooked • assumes that the baseline was

achievable • does not take actual progress/ resources

into account• not reliable in dispute resolution

Event

Event

TimescaleActivities

Event

Claim

EventEvent

Event

10

APPROACH – IMPACTED AS‐PLANNED (IAP)

APPROACH – TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)

11

• prospective and dynamic method – but can be applied retrospectively• takes account of progress and timing of delay events on the Works• requires reliable as‐built data to update the programme (hence, if detailed and regular progress data is not available then this method cannot be used)

• a reliable baseline programme is essential (ideally reflects the execution of the planned project using sound construction logic)

• often undertaken in time slices (windows)

Strengths Weakness• has a proven track‐record in

forensic application• preferred method of the SCL

Protocol• based on a dynamic and changing

critical path• demonstrates cause and effect

• time consuming (to determine the factual background and correct logic associated with progress records and delay events)

• requires considerable degree of expertise and technical knowledge

• hence, difficult to communicate, highly complex

Activity 1Activity 2

Activity 3

Project Completion

Date of Event

TimescaleActivities

Progress behind on this activity.

Delay to Project Completion

Delay to Project Completion (2)

Delay Event

• Delay (1) caused by poor progress• Delay (2) caused by event• Claim = difference between D (1) and D (2)

12

APPROACH – TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)

APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)

13

• retrospective method also known as Collapsed As‐built (CAB)• relies on a detailed reconstruction of the as‐built programme• normally restricted to after‐the‐event analyses in forensic work• does have a limited prospective capability (can be used to demonstrate the effect of a delay on the completed part of an incomplete project)

• has been proven to be reliable in dispute resolution/ claims• If done properly can demonstrates effect and cause/ takes account of concurrence

Strengths Weakness• greatest strength for forensic work

is that it is fact based (based on as‐build)

• not reliant upon an as‐planned programme

• complicated method hence, difficult to execute and to explain

• difficult to establish a dynamic as‐built schedule (as complicated to determine and model logic)

• requires detailed as‐build/ progressrecords

• Identify Planned Period & As‐built

Planned period

Planned Completion

As‐built

Actual Completion

14


• Identify Delays

Plannedperiod

As‐built

Planned Completion

Actual Completion

15


• ‘Zero’ delays

Actual CompletionPlanned

period

Planned Completion

Actual Completion ‘but for’ delays

As‐built

16


• Quantify Claim

Contractperiod

As‐built

Contract Completion

Culpable or non‐claimable delays

Claim period

Actual Completion ‘but for’ delays

Actual Completion

Extended Completion

17


AACEI RP 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis

Table 1 – Nomenclature Correspondence

ADVANTGES & DISADVANTAGESNOT PREFERENCE … OR PREJUDICE!

APPROACH – NOMENCLATURE

18

FINDINGS




Conclusions

19

Which Method is appropriate, correct, sustainable?• Legal/Contractual

• What does the jurisdiction/ contract require? (e.g. Concurrency? Likely or Actual delay to completion? Delay Analysis Method Specified?)

• What information is available?• Planned, progress, as‐built (Does a lack of information preclude the use of any of the methods?)

• Time and Money• Do time/cost constraints eliminate certain options? ((During project/After Project, Record keeping; Staff available (Engineering/Management),Decision making, Budget)

• Other issues: • Proportionality, Type of project, Which party, at what stage is the dispute?

FINDINGS – CHOOSING A METHODOLOGY

20

Key Facts: At least after an event delay becomes a fact and the Other Party/ the Courts are

interested in what actually happened rather than in what could have happened.

For an event to affect the completion date it must fall on the critical path of the project.

must consider all relevant facts and evidence regardless of a positive or negativeimpact in relation to the issues in question

Delay Analysis should be based on a calculated approach it can not be impressionistic

Effect and Cause not Cause and Effect

Are there facts/ evidence available and accessible to verify the cause?

FINDINGS – FACT IS KING

21

Recommend Guidance:

AACEI Recommended Practice (http://www.aacei.org/resources/ppg/)

SCL Protocol (http://www.scl.org.uk/resources)

FINDINGS – GUIDANCE

22

CONCLUSIONS




Conclusions

23

CONCLUSIONS

24

Conclusions: Delay Analysis comes in many guises all with their

advantages and disadvantages To chose the most suitable method depends on the

surrounding factors Facts and common sense are KING

QUESTIONS

Katrin EndersAssociate DirectorHill International (UK) Ltd11 Pilgrim Street,London EC4V 6RNOffice: +44 (0)207 618 1200/ 1262Mobile: +44 (0)7850722796www.hillintl.com

25

QUESTIONS PLEASE ?

4900 Employees worldwide

100 Offices in 40 countries

Construction Claims & Consulting Group

Project Management Group

NYSE Global Market

Founded in 1976

Employers/ContractorsHill International (D) GmbHPrinzregentenstraße 20‐2280538 Mü[email protected]

Düsseldorf, GermanyGraf‐ Adolf‐ Platz 1540213 Dü[email protected]

Hamburg, GermanyAm Kaiserkai 120457 Hamburg

Hill International UKLondon, Hill International UK, Ltd.11 Pilgrim StLondon, EC4V 6RNUKTel: +44 (0)20 7618 1200

(9 UK Locations)

SERVICES

SERVICES

• Compliance• Tools and Templates

• Guidelines• Procedures & Work Flows

• Structures

• In House Seminars• Open Seminars• Industry Events• Coaching / Mentoring• Workshops

• Delay & Disruption Analysis

• Expert Advisory Services• Expert Witness Services

• Claims Preparation• Claims Analysis

• Contract Analysis / Drafting

• Time Risk Management• Procurement Strategy• Contract Advisory• Staff Augmentation• Contract Workshops• Project Audits

Dispute Avoidance

Dispute Resolution

Claims Consulting

Seminars / Coaching / Mentoring