Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Overview
Any meaningful delay analysis has to be based on a sound and suitable programme, usually
prepared by the main contractor and submitted to the project contract administrator. However,
programmes frequently contain programming errors, some of which ought to be identified and
corrected prior to any analysis commencing. This article considers the typical programming
errors made and considers when and how they should be corrected.
Introduction
In the time before computers became everyday utensils programmes were usually static and
commonly used as monitoring tools only. Dynamic programmes only became possible with
the advent of the computer and planning software.
Most complex projects are required to have what amounts to a management programme that
allows monitoring and that it is dynamic enough to reflect progress and that impacts or
changes can be reflected in forecasts and appropriate adjustments made. Being dynamic
alone does not necessarily make a programme suitable as a compensation programme, which
is what is needed for effective delay analysis. It therefore frequently becomes necessary to
bridge this gap which leads us to examine programmes in detail.
Contractor’s claims for extension of time usually include a delay analysis exercise that
presents an assessment of time entitlement resulting from certain owner risk events. Such
analysis’s commonly rely on the contractor’s baseline or revised programme. A programme
may have sufficed progress monitoring and updating throughout the project life though may,
nonetheless, contain errors which may not have been apparent when the programme was
prepared or accepted by the contract administrator though may inhibit meaningful delay
analysis due to such errors.
Programme errors are either conceptual in that the contractor’s planning is in some way flawed
or structural in that it incorporates incorrect programming practises.
Contractors may seek to correct the programme to form a compensation programme so that
it better depicts its contracted obligations and intentions to provide a suitable base for delay
• Structural (or scheduling) errors arise from the way the data is entered into the programme
(by the planning software), though the contractor’s planning intentions may be sound.
Examples include missing inter-activity linkage and an inappropriately applied activity
constraint. These may not inhibit programme construction though could prevent correct
updating and inhibit effective delay analysis.
Identification of conceptual errors requires a good degree of project knowledge and an
understanding of the contractor’s intent as well as to how the programme is structurally
constructed. Correcting many conceptual errors may change the programme out of all
recognition, which presents a challenge when presenting the corrected programme as a
suitable basis for analysis and may attract criticism of programme manipulation.
Conversely, structural errors can be identified by direct examination2 of the programme alone
and can be done mostly independent of any project knowledge. Correcting structural errors is
more straight forward and easier for the parties to accept since they originate more from poor
programming than from poor planning.
A way to avoid distortions whilst programme updating, especially when progress achieved
differs significantly from plan, one ought to adopt the simple rule of “ruthless logic”. That is to
review all logic links when creating a programme to ensure that whatever happens, the link in
question is absolutely necessary, and eliminate any which are not. The problem for
programme correction is that once a programme is created, it is for the delay analyst to
ascertain what caused it to elongate, which may be problematic if many links are inappropriate.
Whilst the programme corrections may suffice in many situations it can often be better to
explain the illogicality, and so apportion liability, though not necessarily change the programme
itself.
Programmes can usually be made more realistic, though to do this extensively can be
exhaustive. Effective delay analysis requires a suitable programme as a tool, though not all
errors need be corrected. Given that the time needed is high, uncertainty and the need to
retain baseline characteristics programme corrections ought to be limited to corrections to
Activity link lag: • The programmed period of time between two related activity events
as applied to the activity relationship
Contract time • The contract boundary conditions (commencement, possession,
requirements: intermediary or completion milestones) or programme composition
requirements
Critical path • The method by which the timing and float of all activities is
method (CPM): calculated based on the activity durations, relationships and
constraints. Identifies the sequence of activities that describe the
critical path(s). Calculated by the planning software used to compile
the programme
Data date: • The date by which a programme is current. Also referred to as the
‘progress date’ or ‘update date’
Float: • Total float is the period an activity can be delayed without impacting
completion. Activities with zero float lay on a critical path
Programme: • The means the process of calculating and presenting how a project
is planned to be executed
Programme • A programme that depicts the total contracted scope of works as at
Baseline: commencement
Mitigation • Achievement untenable. The contractor has to have the ability and
programmes willingness to mitigate delay, and that all other parties are equally
able and committed
Intentional short • Short cuts implemented to make a programme “fit” the project
cuts period
• Phantom logic to fix activities in time, effectively create static
portions whereas the remainder is dynamic
• Updates including unregistered revisions of future activities
(durations and / or logic) in order to mask delays, only to emerge
later whereupon it becomes too late to address
Structural errors
Actual status • Activity status6 is incongruent with the actual progress achieved
inconsistent with • Activity dates later than the data-date incorrectly recorded as as-
the data-date built
Activity • Constraints misused7. Programmers sometimes adopt constraints
constraints in lieu of reasoned activity linkage
missing or
5 In the case of unrecoverable delay the contractor may programme to complete the works later than then the
due completion requirements.
6 when an activity actually commences, completes or the progress achieved.
7 Programmes are meant to be dynamic and activities flow dependant on the actual progress achieved and any
Programme is not • Usually due to insufficient or inappropriate links and constraints the
dynamic programme may not be dynamic13 and becomes inoperable. It
remains static
Authorities
There are no definitive authorities tackling he matter of programme correction for the purpose
of preparing compensation programmes. Most commentators agree some form of correction
is warranted if necessary though none describe the actual process.
Pickavance14 identifies that merely because a programme has been approved or accepted
does not mean it fulfils the required level of accuracy necessary for proving the extent or
responsibility of delay. He continues suggesting that programmes are more often produced
for monitoring the construction process rather than for forensic examination, which may not
be subsequently undertaken.
8 Referred to as ‘open-ends’. Exactly how the programme management software treats open-ends varies.
9 Finish-to-Start links with overly long lag periods are usually included for one of two reasons: firstly, that the lag
period is hiding an un-programmed activity, secondly that the scheduler failed to identify suitable appropriate
linkage to another activity.
10 A negative lag suggests a successor event occurs before its preceding event occurs.
11 There is no definitive proportion of activities that ought not be critical. The author suggests 20% to 25% of all
project is expected to complete later than the current due completion date(s).
13 Programme is no capable of undergoing CPM.
14 Keith Pickavance, ‘Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts’, 3 rd Edtn., 2005, pages 547 to 550.
15 Society of Construction Law, UK, publication ‘Rider 1 to the SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol’, para. 3.2.8,
dated July 2015.
16 For example under FIDIC 1987, Red Book.
17 An unreported case.
Activity scope • If the scope of an individual activity is too great or duration too long
and durations consider incorporating a series of new subordinate activities.
Wherever possible the timing of these sub-activities should match the
original activity. This may introduce float to the subordinate activities
• If an activity duration is too short, in that it is impractical to complete
within the allotted duration, it should be extended to the shortest
duration reasonably possible cognisant of the extent of works known.
Generally, the contractor is responsible for any resultant delay to
completion20. If the contractor can identify reasoned grounds21 for it
adopting an overly short activity durations these should be described
18 It may well not be necessary to correct certain structural errors, particularly those which lay off the critical
path(s).
19 Contract administrators sometimes prefer revised programmes not to refer to variation works until they are
formally instructed.
20 Since the contractor accepted the contract completion requirements and was aware of aware of the total scope
Structural Errors
Activity status • Activities commencing later than the programme data date cannot be
assigned actual dates nor percentage complete greater than zero. If
they do, investigate and assess the correct situation
• Activities and / or events completing prior to the programme data date
should refer to actual activity progress dates. If not, investigate,
assess and correct
• The recorded percentage complete should reflect the actual status of
progress achieved as at the programme data date. If not, re-assess
and correct
Logic links • Inter-activity logic links should reflect the construction sequence logic
and not simply applied the make the programme operable (dynamic)
• Finish-to-Start links are ideal though Start-to-Start and Finish-to-
Finish links are also useful if suitable
22 When the unrealistic programme is corrected to incorporate more realistic activity durations and sequences the
completion dates will likely extend. The contractor would be culpable for this delay unless it can be substantiated.
23 Use of activity constraints which absolutely fix when an activity occurred should be limited to events wholly out
with the definitions of the contract, i.e. opening of a new bridge constructed under a separate contract which will
provide new access routes to the project site.
Total float • If the period of total float is overly long associated linkage should be
examined and if appropriate, links revised or new links added
• A programme containing a high proportion of activities with zero or
low total float it may indicate a programmer’s over-zealous use of
activity linkage. Linkage to be reviewed and corrected where
appropriate
• For baseline programmes, negative float suggests that completion or
a milestone will not be met. All such incidences should be identified
and investigated and wherever reasonable, corrected to remove all
negative float
The • Once all errors are identified, recorded and for those necessary
programme is corrected, the programme is rescheduled24 and the critical path(s)
not dynamic determined. If the programme is not dynamic (it does not reschedule
correctly) blocking linkage and constraints should be re-reviewed to
establish the source of any error. This process is repeated until
programme becomes dynamic and identifies a reasonable critical
path(s).
• Whereupon the critical path(s) deviates from the original critical
path(s) the programme should be re-reviewed to establish the causes
of such alteration. It may be that the corrections incorporated were not
appropriate or that the critical path originally identified was incorrect
Incorporation of corrections
On the basis a programme contains errors and the parties agree some form correction is
needed the parties may still have different opinions as to how corrections ought to be
incorporated. On one hand, the contractor will likely seek to ensure that the corrected
programme will be sufficient to enable it to demonstrate the period(s) of time it considers it is
entitled too. The contract administrator may be vigilant that corrections do not exaggerate any
entitlements or hide contractor culpability.
25 The aim of retaining the timing of activities not associated with a particular programme error is desirable as to
do so retains the contractor’s planned intended timing to undertake such works. The programme should not
however be unreasonably manipulated to achieve no overall programme change.
26 Owing to errors which are not corrected.
End