Approaches to delay analysis

Methods Available for Analysis of Delay

Introduction

1 There are a number of different analysis methods that may be adopted with respect to
determining delays on a capital project. In the case of most projects, only those
adopting the critical path method (“CPM”) are likely to provide robust results1.

2 The methods that may be considered are2:

a) The “Snapshot” or “Windows” approach;

b) The “Time Impact” approach;

c) The “Collapsed As-Built” or “As-Built-But-For” approach; and

d) The “Impacted As-Planned” approach.

3 I discuss the principle of each of these methods of delay calculation in more detail
below.

The “Windows” Approach

4 The “Windows” Approach requires the analysis of programme updates over time to
track the effects of delaying events through the programme. The method requires
generally for the contractor to have “updated” and rescheduled their programme at
intervals in time so that the effect on the completion date (or Sectional completion
dates) of delays can be determined and tracked over time. Such updates of the
programme are carried out contemporaneously and typically occur at periods that
coincide with project progress reports or meetings.

The “Time Impact” Approach

5 This approach is very similar to the “Windows” approach in that the “Time Impact”
approach requires the analysis of programme updates over time to track the effects of
delaying events through the programme. However, rather than updates occurring at
periods coinciding with project progress meetings, updates coincide with the point at
which the individual delaying events occur.

The “Collapsed As-Built” or “As-Built-But-For” Approach

6 The “Collapsed As-Built” or “As-Built-But-For” approach uses, as its starting point, an

as-built programme constructed either contemporaneously or forensically from
contemporaneous records. The effects of alleged delay events are then deducted from
the as-built programme to provide a programme that reflects, notionally, how the
project would have been built but for the alleged delay events (thus “As-Built-But-For”).

1
Reference is made to “The Society of Construction Law” – Delay and Disruption Protocol – Guidance
Section 4 (March 2003 reprint).
2
I note that the as-planned v as-built methods of analysis are only used for measuring total actual delay
to individual subsystems and is not considered for quantifying delay due to individual causes.

PwC Page 1
Approaches to delay analysis

The “Impacted As-Planned” Approach

7 The “Impacted As-Planned” approach uses, as its starting point the planned
programme of works. The effects of delay events are then added into the programme
to provide an impacted programme that reflects, notionally, how the project would have
been planned and thus, have been built. This impacted programme takes into account
the alleged delay events, had they been known about at the time the planned
programme was put together.

Factors Affecting the Choice of Delay Analysis Method

8 There are therefore a number of methods of analysis that may be adopted in respect of
determining delays on a project. The following factors will generally be relevant and
should be given consideration when choosing the most appropriate method3:

a) The nature of the delays to be investigated;

b) The quality and availability of contemporaneous records;

c) The quality (and availability) of suitably updated project programmes and

progress reports;

d) The extent to which the project has changed from that which was originally
planned;

e) The time and resources available for the analysis of delays; and

f) Obligations as to time / performance of the works.

9 I provide below a brief discussion of each of these factors, and explain how the
selection of an appropriate method may be driven by such factors. Each of the
methods has limitations, and in any single delay case, a number or combination of
methods may be appropriate. Indeed, one may be faced with choosing the least
inappropriate method of analysis in some cases.

The nature of the delays to be investigated

10 The nature of the delay to be investigated may be determinative of the method of delay
analysis that is most appropriate. For example, in the case of an extension of time
claim where a contractor, in response to a number of delays regularly re-planned and
re-sequenced the project, and accelerated particular activities, then the “windows” or
“time impact” approach may be particularly appropriate4.

11 Where delays relate to additional work or late information, but where the works were
carried out in essentially the same sequence as the original programme, the use of an
“impacted as-planned” or a “collapsed as-built” analysis may be appropriate. These

3
This list is intended to be illustrative. It is not exhaustive.
4
As this would allow the changes in the schedule and the impacts of acceleration on attainment of
progress to be identified. This is also particularly relevant when there have been regular shifts in the
position of the critical path.

PwC Page 2
Approaches to delay analysis

latter methods would not necessarily demonstrate the type of regular re-sequencing
described above without particular emphasis being given to such in the analysis.

The quality and availability of contemporaneous records

12 One of the key factors to take into account when adopting an appropriate method of
delay analysis is the quality and availability of contemporaneous records.

13 In instances where the records are not sufficiently detailed, the retrospective
construction of a reliable logically linked as-built programme may be inappropriate, or
the detail available for analysis of particular delays insufficient to make the “collapsed
as-built” approach worthwhile5.

14 The “impacted as-planned” method may be appropriate where few contemporary

records exist in an extension of time claim where delays to activities can be simply
identified and evidenced and there are no allegations of concurrent delay.

15 Where robust regular updated programmes exist, both the “windows” and the “time
impact” approaches may be appropriate. However, if the period programmes were
contemporaneously updated only at progress meeting periods, then in order to utilise
the “time impact” approach, progress would need to be interpolated from period
programmes either side of the delaying event in question.

The quality (and availability) of suitably updated project programmes and progress
reports

16 Suitably updated and representative project programmes are particularly key to the
“windows” or “time impact” type of delay analysis and a lack of such records may
render these methods unworkable. While from a delay analysis perspective, it would
be preferable to see regularly updated (and agreed) programmes, such that the actual
progress and projected completion date of part and all of the work could be seen at
any time.

17 Neither the “collapsed as-built” nor the “impacted as-planned” methods rely upon
contemporaneously updated programmes, based as they are upon as-built and as-
planned programmes respectively. Therefore, the lack of agreed original or as-built
programmes would render these methods unworkable in the same way as it would for
the “time impact” or “windows” approaches.

The extent to which the project has changed from that which was originally planned

18 On projects where the planned sequence and type of work is significantly different from
that developed, the use of an “impacted as-planned” approach may be inappropriate
without significant modification. The “windows” or “time impact” forms of analyses may
be most appropriate to capture various changes in the sequencing (and re-sequencing)
of the project as the work progressed in response to delay events and other delays
impacting the works. The “collapsed as-built” approach would also capture the

5
For example, if a number of discrete delay allegations were made in respect to carrying out a particular
activity, but the as-built records provide scant evidence as to how and when that activity was actually
built.

PwC Page 3
Approaches to delay analysis

sequence of work as it had occurred and would therefore be appropriate where the
planned sequence was not followed or was changed6.

19 Where the essential sequence of activities within the planned programme have not
significantly altered, then any of the methods described above may be appropriate.

Time and resources available for the analysis of delays

20 While it should be sought, wherever possible, to optimise the level of detail and
accuracy in the calculation of delays and thereby in the choice of delay analysis
method, the choice of method must be considered in light of “proportionality”. In short,
the method of delay analysis should be appropriate to the type of delays, and the time
period and resources available to carry out such an analysis. For example, the
construction of as-built programmes can be a time consuming process7. Therefore,
where a heavy investment of time or resources is inappropriate or unfeasible, the
“collapsed as-built” method may be inappropriate.

6
Although to capture such sequential changes, the as-built programme would have to be produced to a
high level of detail.
7
Where little contemporarily produced as-built programme is available.

PwC Page 4