You are on page 1of 1

4.

3 Selection criteria and guidance
On many of today’s larger international engineering and construction projects, the contracts specifies which method of analysis will be used to measure the impact of change to the programme during the course of the works. When the contract is silent on the method, or when these requirements are not followed, the terms of the contract must be the first factor to consider when choosing which method of analysis will be applied forensically. If the contract terms state that the extension of time entitlement must be established by measuring delays to the ‘planned completion’ date rather than the ‘contract completion’ date, then a method which relies on contemporaneous programme projections is necessary. This is because the ‘planned’ date changes from time to time; progress achieved and the impact of any critical delays experienced must be measured by relation to the ‘planned’ completion date. If the contract terms state that the extension of time entitlement must be established by events which ‘have caused delay’ to completion, then a form of retrospective analysis relying on an as-built programme of some sort is likely to be most appropriate so that the delay will have a basis in fact, rather than prospective CPM calculations. If the contract requires that extension of time entitlement can be established based on the ‘likely delay’ to completion caused by an event, then methods of prospective analysis, which project ‘what-if’ scenarios of how the works might have been delayed, may be used. Before selecting the method of analysis, it is necessary to review the contract and identify what question(s) the analyst must address, for example: what was the actual delay to completion, as a matter of fact, and what is the likely delay to completion?