Construction SuperConference

San Francisco, CA December 2006

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

Session E8 10:45a.m. 12:00 p.m. Thursday, December 7, 2006 Presented by: Robert C. McCue, P.E. of MDCSystems Patrick J. O'Connor, Jr., Esquire of Faegre & Benson

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

The Trouble with Scheduling Analysis

Complexity Lack of transparency Subjectivity Cost

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

Methodology Problems
Failure to use or rely on the original schedule: See Pathman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 23392, 85-2 BCA 18, 096 (1985). Two opposing experts produce after-the-facts schedules (both unreliable).

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

Methodology Problems
Failure to use or rely on the original schedule: See Pathman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 23392, 85-2 BCA 18, 096 (1985). Cs expert labeled the original bar chart as meaningless and chose to prepared an after-thefact CPM; because of changes made to original plan by expert, the CPM found unreliable.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

Methodology Problems
Failure to use or rely on the original schedule: See Pathman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 23392, 85-2 BCA 18, 096 (1985). Gs expert created his own schedule, also relied on Cs schedule and at times referred to the original bar chart and at times applied his own knowledge and beliefs with regard to construction.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

Methodology Problems
Failure to consider actual performance. Ealahan Elec. Co., DOT BCA No. 1959, 90-3 BCA 23, 177 (1990). Opposing experts failed to consider actual performance. Cs expert converted a bar chart contract requirement into a CPM schedule; however, in doing so, failed to account for Cs actual performance.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

Methodology Problems
Failure to consider actual performance. Ealahan Elec. Co., DOT BCA No. 1959, 90-3 BCA 23, 177 (1990). A G expert failed to take into consideration reasons why particular activities were delayed and used approximation techniques for quantifying actual durations (ultimately failed to demonstrate causation).

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

Methodology Problems
Unacceptability of an analysis of as-planned plus impacts. See Titan Pacific Constr. Corp., ASBCA Nos. 24148, 24616, 26692, 87-1BCA 19, 626 (1987), summary judgment granted, 17 Cl.Ct. 630 (1989), Affd 899 F.2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 1990). C expert prepared A/P schedule plus impacts but ignored actual performance.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

Methodology Problems
Unacceptability of an analysis of as-planned plus impacts (contd). Cs like-time analysis included a revised A/P schedule (adjusted for seasonal considerations), which produced a different critical path and completion date and then added Owner-caused and weather-related delays to obtain a projected (theoretical) completion date.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

Methodology Problems
Unacceptability of an analysis of as- planned plus impacts (contd). BD rejected analysis as purely theoretical. See also, Freeman-Darling, Inc., GSBCA No. 7112, 89-2 BCA 21, 882 (1989).

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

10

Methodology Problems
Failure to establish correlation between plan, changes, actual performance and contemporaneous records. See Titan Mountain States Constr. Corp., ASBCA No. 23095, 85-1 BCA 17, 931 (1985). Cs expert failed to establish causal relationship between mods and alleged delays attributable to them.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

11

Methodology Problems
Failure to establish correlation . . . (contd) Expert prepared an A/P vs. A/B analysis with a comparison of various updates to show delays. BD found that such comparison disclosed only differences between them and not causes of those differences. CPM updates alone insufficient to establish that COs caused delay.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

12

Methodology Problems
Failure to establish correlation . . . (contd) Expert did not personally examine CPM printouts, quality control and quality assurance reports or payrolls (only cursorily reviewed project correspondence and other documents and had no contact with any of the subs).

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

13

Methodology Problems
Failure to consider ones own delays. See Gulf Constr., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 30195, 32839, 33867, 89-2 BCA 21, 812, Affd on Recon., 90-1 BCA 22, 393 (1989), Affd 23 Cl.Ct. 525, Affd, 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir.), Cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 598 (1992). Expert failed to consider delays for which C was responsible.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

14

Methodology Problems
Failure to consider ones own delays (contd). Expert took approved CPM schedule and revised it to correct certain logic errors and incorporate crew restraints. Created a revised CPM for use as a benchmark schedule and then prepared analysis of G-caused delays and made a comparison of A/P vs. A/B s.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

15

Methodology Problems
Failure to consider ones own delays (contd). Expert performed in-depth review of all project correspondence and data pertinent to progress of project but was instructed to exclude all disruptions except those caused by G.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

16

Methodology Problems
Failure to consider ones own delays (contd). G expert presented revised A/P. and an analysis of 5 Contractor-caused delays that impacted projects critical path. Cs analysis unreliable and inherently biased.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

17

Methodology Problems
Failure to keep schedules up to date and reflecting delays as they occur. See Fortec Constr. v. U.S., 8 Cl.Ct. 490 (1985).
Failure to account for delays as they occurred can call into question ones analysis. See e.g., Ballenger Corp., DOTBCA No. 74-32, 74-32A, 72-32H, 84-1 BCA 16, 973 at 84, 524 (1983); Preston-Brady Co., VABCA Nos. 1892, 1991, 2555, 87-1 BCA 19, 649 (1987).

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

18

Methodology Problems
Failure to involve the right people in the delay analysis. See Turner Constr. Co., ASBCA Nos. 25447, 29472, 29591, 29592, 29830, 29851, 29852, 90-2 BCA 22, 649 (1990). Gs experts analysis rejected because limited and cursory review of project DOCS (that were selected by G, not expert).

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

19

Methodology Problems
Failure to involve the right people . . . (contd) Information compiled by individuals who had nothing to do with actual performance. Substantial portion of analysis was delegated by expert to associates whose qualifications were questionable.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

20

10

Methodology Problems
Need to avoid adversarial interests. See Nello L. Teer Co., ENGBCA No. 4376, 83-3 BCA 19, 326 (1986). CPM schedule becomes suspect when C and G have developed adversarial interests. Too many variables in schedule subject to manipulation to permit acceptance of conclusions by CPM consultants in such circumstances.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

21

Common Problems
Modified total time simply throwing in some selfcaused delays without analysis ad hoc Ignoring concurrent delays Failure to account for pacing Ignoring your own delays

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

22

11

Time Impact Analysis (TIA)

TIA is
A technique for apportioning actual delay which has occurred A retrospective analysis using 20 20 hindsight It is not a prospective analysis which requires predictions about future occurrences Is it really a TIA?

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

23

Computer Based Electronic Schedules

Electronic Schedules, essential for today's environment Constraints, Restraints and Logic ties Computer based schedules are Models of the planned work Computer based as-built schedules are records of the actual work

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

24

12

TIA Requirements
As-Planned Schedule
Contract Dates (Milestones) Logical Relationships (Work Sequence) Reasonable Durations

As-Built Schedule
Actual activity start dates Actual activity completion dates Change Orders inserted

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

25

Recommended TIA Procedure

1. Determine the baseline (as-planned) schedule for the analysis. 2. Establish the reasonableness of the baseline activity durations and logic, and revise as required. This results in a revised baseline. 3. Determine the source and reliability of as-built data. 4. Select the first Time Impact Analysis (TIA) date and determine the progress of all activities, to that date. 5. Note any delaying events which occurred during the analysis period (late progress). 6. Update the revised baseline for progress during the analysis period (progress override). 7. Identify and insert new activities as necessary. 8. Revise remaining durations using Contractors projected schedule. 9. Note change in project completion date.
Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects
26

13

Recommended TIA Procedure cont

10. Determine cause and responsibility (owner, Contractor, etc.) for the change in project completion date (technical review of activity). 11. Inspect the network for controlling delays and note. 12. Repeat steps 4-11 for each analysis. 13. Develop successive Time Impact Analysis (TIA) around critical activity delays and controlling delays until the analysis reaches project completion, using as-built data. 14. Summarize the results of the analysis using simplified summary graphics. 15. Run comparative schedule analysis to ascertain all changes to the successive Time Impact Analysis (TIA) schedules and summarize. 16. Identify and highlight on the summary graphics, the controlling and critical delays.
Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

27

Dancing with the Schedule

The schedule is a model of the intended work plan The schedule is only as good as the plan Multiple layers of interactions between the activities of the schedule may not be modeled (scheduled) at all The schedule is not precise and will be revised many times during the course of the actual work While exact calculations of events can be made, as a practical matter, schedule calculations lack precision

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

28

14

Dancing with the Schedule

The schedule is a tool to help manage the work The actual work will not mimic the plan Physical relationships on the work site will control actual work activities and may not be in the logic The management or forensic value of the construction schedule is directly related to the effort invested in preparing, up-dating and replanning the schedule Self organizing, nonlinear, feedback systems are unpredictable*

* The Systems Thinker Volume 13 Number 2 (Dancing with Systems by Donella Meadows)

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

29

Project Examples
Refinery Renovation 120 million dollar Refinery Utilities UpGrade and expansion project in the middle east Submarine Pipeline Five Foot Diameter, 12,000 meter Cement Encased Pipeline

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

30

15

Refinery Project Analysis

Apportion Delay, Owner EPC Contractor Defective Design Site Conditions Changes Owner Interference

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

31

Refinery Project Analysis Blending, Storage & Transfer System

The BS&T System consists of tanks, pumps, blenders/mixers, and piping to handle storage for new process plant feeds and products; provide inline blending of motor gasoline, diesel and fuel oil; transfer unit feeds, intermediate products, blending components, and finished products; and, cool black oil. Existing services and equipment will be refurbished and relocated from other areas.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

32

16

BS&T Issues
Owner delayed start of construction due to drainage issues U/G obstructions Owners inaccurate as-built drawings Changes in Owners OMSB philosophy HAZOP Review Black Oil sump foundation delay (TEL contamination)

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

33

Schedule Summary
As-Planned Schedule As-Built Schedule Change Orders Comparison of 90% Engineering IFC Drawing Analysis

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

34

17

Major Change Orders

52 Revise pumps, electrical, foundations, etc
of Diesel, Fuel Oil and Mogas blenders. BS&W estimated $2,888,739.

63, 64, & 88 Piping, instrumentation and

junction box as-builts. These were required because the as-built data provided by Owner was inaccurate.

67 Oil Movement, Storage and Blending

revision. BS&W estimated $519,660 with an 81/2 month schedule impact.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

35

Major Change Orders cont

120 BS&T HAZOP revisions. BS&W estimated $241,408. 122 Inter-contract instrumentation changes. Compensates BS&W
for the additional work discussed in the March 1996 Packages 2 & 5 coordination meeting. BS&W estimated $203,826 and 2 to 4 months of schedule adjustment. 152 BS&T instrumentation changes. Compensates BS&W for the procurement and construction changes resulting from CO #67. BS&W estimated $489,277.

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

36

18

As-Planned Schedule

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

37

As-Built Schedule

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

38

19

Change Orders

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

39

Blending, Storage & Transfer Mechanical Completion Analysis

1995
July 26, 1994 Bid Schedule (RAST) Oct 1997

1996

1997

1998

1999

June 19, 1995 & June 17 1995 BS&W Schedule Analysis

Mar 1998 Jun 1998

Owner Approved Reconstructed (CPM) Schedule with June 1995 Impacts

Oct 1997

Mechanical Completion Certificate

Jan 1999

Bid vs Completed Schedule Delay 15 months delay

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

40

20

BS&T Summary
Engineering delayed 24 Months 90% Engineering delayed 9 Months IFC Drawings delayed 24 Months Mechanical Completion delayed 16 Months Impacted by 53 Change Orders

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

41

Schedule Analysis
TIAs would be meaningless As-Planned schedule was fundamentally defective Re-Planned schedules were rigged COs not incorporated into the schedules Constrained milestone dates Fixed inter-system and inter-package dates

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

42

21

Refinery Analysis Summary

Observations and Comments

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

43

Submarine Pipeline Analysis

Original Schedule 80 Activities As-Built 140 Activities

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

44

22

Schedule Analysis Results

Contractor Delay Analysis 500 days of delay, Owner Responsibility Time Impact Analysis 140 Days of total delay, Contractor Responsibility

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

45

Submarine Pipeline Analysis

Apportion Delay, Owner-Contractor Issues Giving Rise to Delay Weather Underwater conditions Damage to Pipeline

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

46

23

Activity Status
Physical Units Schedule Data Reporting Daily Records

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

47

Analysis Schedules
Submarine Pipeline As-Planned Schedule Submarine Pipeline TIA Summary Submarine Pipeline Work During Exclusion Periods

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

48

24

Contact Us!
Robert C. McCue, P.E.
MDCSystems 300 Berwyn Park Suite 115 Berwyn, PA 19312 610-640-9600

Patrick J. OConnor, Jr., Esq.

Faegre & Benson, LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South 7th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-766-7413

*Time Impact AnalysisSM and TIASM are service marks of IMDISI Inc. *Time Impact Analysis is Registered Trademark # 1701267 of IMDISI, Inc. in the European Union ** TIA is Registered Trademark # 1700210 of IMDISI, Inc. in the European Union

Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects

49

25