2007 AACE International Transactions

CDR.04 The Great Debate—TIA vs WINDOWS A Better Path for Retrospective Delay Analysis?
Bruce Evans Hallock, PSP CFCC and Pradip M. Mehta
“…we have to fight this battle upon principle alone…So I hope those whom I am surrounded have principle enough to nerve themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can be fairly done to bring about the right result.” (A. Lincoln, 1858) side the contractor used a modified TIE to justify his position, while on the other, the owner adopted Window Analysis to rebut the contractor’s claims, determine entitlement, causation, excusable and compensable time. These analyses were not done in isolation, but were prepared cooperatively. This level of cooperation permitted each party to have full visibility to the respective analytical processes, and encouraged an ongoing dialogue as they progressed. More than just a tool to analyze the project delays; the Window Analysis provided the ability to accurately calculate all time related compensation. In the taxonomy of delay analyses the term “window analysis” is often misused to describe any delay analysis that is based on an examination of a series of project time periods. The same is equally true for time impact analysis. For example it is common to read that “window analysis, [is] a variation of time impact analysis… [4]” D. Arditi and T. Pattanakitchamroon cite the views of researchers and practitioners in 20 articles published between 1987 and 2004 on the relative advantages of four of the more common delay analysis methods. Their analysis lumps comments regarding window analysis under the heading time impact method regardless of the terminology in the referenced article [5]. When one reads deeper, the time periods in the time impact analysis are often simply referred to as “windows.” In fact the time periods in nearly all delay analysis are often referred to as ‘windows’ and thus the confusion begins. In the same vein time impact evaluation and time impact analysis are used interchangeably. Beginning in the early 1960s, time impact evaluation was the name given to the method for updating CPM schedules to reflect actual performance and delays, later the name evolved into time impact analysis [6]. Today many US federal, state and local government contracts use both the names time impact analysis or time impact evaluation to define a similar process for supporting time requests for changes or delays. In 2006, the Phoenix Light Rail project contract specification requirements for determining prospective views regarding time extensions for change orders used the terminology “TIE” along with steps which are very similar to the TIA requirements on other public contracts.


oday’s construction industry is in great disarray [1]. As a matter of course, capital projects are increasingly arenas of conflict over intractable problems, extended time of performance resulting in significant losses. Simple bad fortune is not the root cause, rather the problems often stem from an inability to identify and resolve complex performance issues through a contemporaneous process, before the dispute blossoms into costly litigation. Understanding and explaining performance issues is a significant obstacle to resolution and has increasingly led the parties to this arena. One of the most contentious of issues is schedule and delay and “the principal dimension measured by schedules is delay [2].” Over the past 20 years the number and complexity of delay claims has escalated exponentially. However, amid the variety of delay analysis methodologies, which in turn can lead to different results, it becomes more difficult to resolve disputes early and presents more challenges for the trier of fact. In addition, the “blending” of methodologies and/or the misuse of methodologies has further led to the difficulties in resolving the issue of delay. While a standard methodology does not exist for tracking schedule progress and analyzing delays, we should all be encouraged by the debate within the industry and the efforts to develop best practices [3]. The question still remains; is there a correct way to perform delay analyses? Or, if we are reluctant to identify a “correct” way, is one method, better than another and more likely to provide a more accurate depiction of the delay? For the past two decades we have seen the tide ebb and flow over several methodologies and for a few, while they have not yet been put to rest, the courts have tolled their death knell. Debate has “swirled” for many years around the effectiveness of two of the more prominent tools for retrospective delay analyses, time impact analysis (TIA), sometimes referred to as time impact evaluation (TIE), and Window Analysis. At last an opportunity has arisen which permits a comparison of the two methods. This opportunity saw the application of both methods on the same project, to analyze the project delays. On the one


2007 AACE International Transactions each, including the potential confusion between TIA and TIE; Time Impact Evaluation (TIE) for Change Orders and and finally our case study will focus the analysis on the head-toOther Delays head confrontation of the two methods, and attempt to answer • When the contractor is directed to proceed with changed the question; is there a better way? work, or issued a change notice, the contractor shall preWINDOW ANALYSIS VS. TIE, METHODS pare and submit, within 14-calendar days of notification, a FOR ANALYZING PROJECT DELAY time impact evaluation (TIE) that includes both a written narrative and a schedule diagram (fragnet) depicting how While various organizations use either or both window analythe changed work affects the other schedule activities. The fragnet shall show how the contractor proposes to incorpo- sis and TIE, the literature presented herein focuses on the window analysis method as has been described in various published rate the changed work in the schedule.” • The TIE shall be based on the latest accepted project papers and research regarding delay analysis and as employed by The Nielsen-Wurster Group, Inc. (Nielsen-Wurster), as well as schedule update.” • If applicable, the contractor shall demonstrate how the other companies analyzing delay. Recognizing that TIA and changed work impacts the current schedule update critical TIE are often used interchangeably and that there is more than path. The contractor is also responsible for requesting time one delay analysis method know as TIE, this paper is examining extensions based on the TIE's impact on the critical path.” the modified TIE method the contractor used for the case study • If the changed work impacts the critical path and a contract being evaluated herein as described in the book titled, CPM in milestone, of the last accepted project schedule, the con- Construction Management [10]. tractor shall submit, along with the TIE, a mitigation plan, including a schedule diagram (fragnet) which explains how Window Analysis [11] the impact can be mitigated, and contract milestone date The window analysis approach was first developed by recovered. The contractor shall also include a detailed cost Nielsen-Wurster and employed in the litigations in U.S. District breakdown of the labor, equipment and material, the con- court involving the King Dome Stadium in Seattle, tractor would expend to mitigate the agency caused time Washington. The court, in its opinion, indicated that the winimpact.” dow analysis provided the clearest understanding of the problems and delays and was a foundation for its decision in favor of In spite of the efforts of AACE International and others, our the owner for whom it was prepared. Since that opinion, winindustry has not able to agree upon a universally accepted stan- dow analysis has been employed and accepted in US federal, dard terminology for delay analysis methods. This dearth of state, and agency tribunals, arbitrations and utility commission cohesion has created great confusion among schedulers, con- proceedings for resolving acceleration/delay disputes [12]. Window analysis divides a project into specific time periods sultants, lawyers, and owners when trying to communicate about various analytical methods. As noted above most of the lit- (that is windows of time), which are defined by changes to the erature makes no distinction between TIA/TIE and window project critical path or major events as defined in the contemanalysis. Both are considered “contemporaneous period analy- poraneous project schedules and project documentation. ses [7].” However, it was observed that if a delay analysis is Window analysis uses the actual project schedules developed prospective in nature, most authors tend to refer that type of and submitted to the owner (employer). Delay is determined analysis as TIA and if a delay analysis is performed on a retro- based on actual project documentation. Assumptions which employ subjectivity, as to “what should have happened,” are not spective basis, it was referred as window analysis. A review of the current literature reveals six different delay made. Each window starts with a contemporaneous plan for the analysis methods that have been referred to as synonymous with future work and ends when the plan is revised and/or the critical path changes between schedule revisions. The “window in window analysis. They include the following [8]. time” is defined by the calendar period between the schedules being used to present the work planned between the schedule • time impact analysis (TIA); changes. By using each schedule update for the period until a • snapshot technique; new critical path or major event arises, the analysis always looks • record schedule approach; at the then critical path. This is extremely important as delays to • adjusted as-planned; the critical path activities determine the delays to the project • modified as-built; and completion date. Through the use of current schedules the real• contemporaneous period analysis. ity of the project and information known to the parties at the While XeroxTM may have fallen into the lexicon of our lan- time delays were occurring is analyzed and the method used by guage as the generic term for “photocopies,” in the post Daubert the contractor and owner in managing those delays is addressed. Furthermore, the use of contemporaneous project informaworld of delay analysis, we are not afforded the luxury of generalization. We must clearly define the methodology used to per- tion ensures that the analysis addresses delays to activities that were critical as they occurred. In recent years, courts and form the analysis and stand ready to defend it.9 This paper will define the analytical steps of the window arbiters have held that contract extensions should be based analysis and the time impact evaluation (TIE) as modified in its upon current schedules for the time period in question, not use on a particular project; compare and contrast each method; schedules created later with the benefit of hindsight. A contemprovide a summary review of the current literature discussing poraneous evaluation of delays requires the analysis to begin CDR.04.2

therefore the initial schedule must be validated to ascertain • Start Gain (SG): The number of working days an activity has started prior to its logically planned start. If it is not critical in the Determine the time periods.results from those delays on the critical path or near critical path ly. If an activigeneral reliability of actual information recorded in the updates. following seven steps. list reflects the parties’ knowledge at the time the delays occurred. as The window period is defined by the calendar period between it did not further delay project completion. Window analysis creates a mechanism whereby these employed and may assist in discovering whether or not the conschedules and their updates can be reviewed in a manageable tractor actually accelerated its work on the project. The analyst should look at each update’s critical path to deterschedule and updates. locate actual start and finStep Description ish dates of only these activities. an audit sample of contemporaneous data upon the schedule logic as other activities’ actual starts or over the actual performance period will provide evidence of the completions may alter this direct comparison). from the scheduled start to the end of the window. if the critical path has not shifted. as the window is intendwhich is less than the scheduled number of work days. next window. prepare analyzed. including project double-counting delay. number. Another benefit of Window analysis is that the critical path (after consuming relatively minor float). the dates are consistent. Identification of changes activities and appear overwhelming when reviewed in their will help guide the analyst to the work around the contractor has entirety. major project events. proceed to step 5. or other contemporaneous • window time frame determination.04. Tracking total float will alert the analyzer to constraints or and has no start in this window. delay may be calculated in the following window. Similarly. ified against daily reports. In cases of duration for the window being analyzed. If the dates are incon• actual dates documentation. In ed to reflect a period in project performance time which correother words. of time between updates be consistent. Step 4: Actual Dates Using the list developed in Step 3. such as when the baseline is revised or when the critical path shifts. major changes to the schedule critical path. project data to determine their accuracy and completeness. If a summary of the data.3 . In summary. excess of the number of days allowed in the schedule. or contract changes. that the network logic and activity durations are reasonable. the delay is calculated only changes to the project completion date. ty has already started prior to the start of the window being Once the CPM updates are identified and validated. sistent. Prepare a listing of the dates of issue of the orig. Schedules mine if there have been any major logic changes (re: sequencon complex construction projects can contain thousands of ing) in addition to duration changes. It is not necessary that the periods • Production Gain (PG): The number of work days for an activity from start through completion (the duration). mine the actual dates.2007 AACE International Transactions with the project start date (or other key early date) and stop at Step 3: Critical Path Determination The initial window is defined by the period between the iniperiodic intervals during the project. in ations required. ues through the end of the window into the next window. it would be reasonable to combine the updates to reduce the iter. The definition of each of these impacts and sign convention is: inal schedule and each schedule update. and total float. For the first window. or “windows” to be analyzed. Care is evaluated in separate. it is only necessary to evaluate the critical path and near critical path activities. completion date. multiple year projects. Window analysis employs the actual CPM data from the project.e. Review may result in sub-windows and/or other analytical work relative to and ultimately more useful manner. as well as to measure the impact of delays.. If • critical path determination. i. diaries. • repeat of steps 3-for all remaining windows. and • total project delay calculations Step 5: Window Delay Calculation The window delay calculation recognizes four distinct types Step 1: Initial and Updated Schedules Locate the original CPM schedule and all updates associated of impact to activities: start gains or delays and production gains with the project. data date. additional documentation must be analyzed to deter• window delay calculations. Further. All update dates should be ver• initial and updated schedule analysis. the balance of the start delay is immaterial. distinct time periods. the activities from the initial CPM schedule that are on the critThere have been cases where the “as-built” analyses have been ical or near critical path and are planned to be started and/or rejected because variances between the as–built schedule and completed in the first window period. Analyzing project delays using Window analysis employs the the specific project facts. In CDR. Window analysis minimizes information gaps by must be given not to include “sub paths” which could result in using contemporaneous project documents. if the Step 2: Window Time Frames activity is still on the critical path. The summary data should include the an activity is scheduled to start in the window and continCPM date. Such an analysis best tial CPM schedule and the first update. to identify critical activities and time periods.or delays. Since project delay only updates of the project schedule cannot be explained adequate. achievable while recognizing there are different means and • Start Delay (SD): The number of working days an activity has actually started after its planned start (this is contingent methods. then there can be no start delay in the window. the actual duration is less than the planned sponds with contemporaneous project CPM records.• Production Delay (PD): The number of work days an activity an activity takes from start through completion.

and depending on how serious. endar days. At the ends • It demonstrates concurrent delay. some are based on sound research. The window no. Like start delay. • It accurately quantities and shows when delays and gains. and defines excusability and compensability. therefore reflects the impacts on a periodic basis. a missing updated schedule can. tempered with a dose of comand near critical activities from the first update which are schedmon sense. The major strengths or other activities’ actual starts or completions may alter a advantages of the window analysis are the following [14]. and the actual completion date. Criticisms on the limitations of the window analysis are less Multiple calendars for different activities on a critical path are not unusual). However in the Step 7: Total Project Delay Calculation absence of systematic updates. Whichever is selected. Production delays are limited to. Direct comparison of the planned versus actual dates will yield an incorrect calculation [13]. occurred. 2. may dictate the choice of one method over another.04. or a repproduction delay is contingent upon schedule logic as etition of the comments of others. uled to be started and/or completed during the window no. the net delay or gain to the project completion • It recognizes the concept of float as a resource and therefore facilitates the distinct delays form apparent delays. primary reasons that delay is usually calculated in work days during the window analysis is that the schedule may be based on • It provides a clear and compelling presentation before the court. some activities may be on a 5-day work week while others may be on a 6-day or 7-day work week. more than one calendar (i. and in most instances are limitations in project docect facts may determine whether delay is calculated in work umentation and not a limitation on the window analysis days or calendar day. be re-constructed. 2. 1. The limitations imposed by shortcomings in the contemporaneous project record will impact any delay analysis be applied throughout the analysis.e. 2 time period was previously going to be used. only those portions of the planned and actual the window analysis method. and are contingent upon. 2 is the source for identifying the critability of the analyst are tested in these instances to provide ical activities to be analyzed in window no.2007 AACE International Transactions other words. Very few projects have complete and fully determined in step 2. plus executed extensions in can affect the outcome ignores the methodology which is project completion date. 2 • Systematic schedule updates are required for the analysis to time period only. then proceed through steps 4-5. Delays and gains can cancel one another. this may not be completely accurate and may be an CDR. this may not be fully accurate and to date no comparative cost data has been providthe course of the project. a review of the • It acknowledges the dynamic nature of CPM schedules and thus accounts for changing critical paths through the life of logic connections between the activities is required prior to the project. arbitration panel. making assessments.4 . A primary • It identifies critical delays in chronological order thus supporting the evaluation of cumulative impacts on subserule when analyzing concurrent critical paths of activities is that quent time periods. while others appear to be the author’s presumptive bias. of each window. the actual duration is greater than the planned Advantages and Disadvantages of Window Analysis Much has been written about the strengths and limitations of duration. equals the delay actually incurred on the project and is the difference between the contractual completion as set forth in the • Manipulation of outcomes is possible with every technique. only one day of delay can be lost on a given calendar day and only one day of gain can be incurred on a given calendar day. which impact the project completion date.• It fairly allocates delays among the project participants. be valid. While this is the general guideline. sum the net ous records are available. latter total delay serves as a check to ensure the delays have been accurately identified and calculated in the time periods during • Expensive and time consuming. it is important to assure that the delay quantified in the window analysis is converted to calendar days. direct comparison with the plan when logic other than fin• It divides the project into manageable time periods. And. This delay with care. and the suggestion that the selection of arbitrary windows originally planned CPM schedule. • Shunned by lawyers because of its data intensive nature.numerous. if accurate contemporaneTo calculate the delay for the entire project. The skill and time point for window no. The first update. As contract delay is typically referred to in cal. One of the • It considers resource allocation as the cause of a production gain or delay. This is true no matter what technique is windows no. the analyst determines the activities to be analyzed for • Requires accurate and detailed contemporaneous project documentation. durations which are within the window. consistency must method itself. This applied to select the windows. specific proj. delays and gains calculated for each of the windows. ed to support this argument. In analyzing each of the four impact scenarios. date is determined by adding the delay/or gain on the controlling critical path. Delays and/or gains for each activity must be plotted on a time line to ensure that • It demonstrates the contractors mitigation through acceleration or revised logic. technique. and is equally true for all analytical techniques. or hearing board. and ish-to-start logic is used.. This is certainly the preferred condition. List the critical experience and judgment. marking the beginning detailed contemporaneous documentation. concurrency of activities is considered and no more than one day of delay is calculated for any one calendar day. Step 6: Repeat Steps 3-5 For All Remaining Windows Once the delay has been calculated and identified for window no.

“…usually will involve a large degree of conjecture and subjecHowever. Causative factors should be evaluated in terms of the specific impacts they may have on the progress of the work. potential change orders. It may be a practical impossibility to perthe TIE method which was employed in this case study is set form this task for all activities in the as-built schedule. such as those suggested by tivity… [21]. the submitted and approved baseline schedule. get entered into the regular schedule updates. the resulting as-impacted CDR. The as-planned logic network. other TIA methodologies. or some other accelerating technique such as off-site pre. but it forth in the sixth edition of James O’Brien and Fredric Plotnick’s should be performed for all known events that may impact a netCPM in Construction Management [36]. This review may reveal areas in the schedule well as gains. thus representing a prospective method. O’Brien and Plotnick modified TIE method. Quite the contrary.2007 AACE International Transactions assumption based on the presumed expense and time to records. • identify all causative factors. shop drawing rejections. These events should be self evident and include such factors as: change orders. This portion of the evaluation is focusing on the defined in O’Brien and Plotnick differs with the more tradition. both the Step 4: Identify All Causative Factors Prepare a table of all known events that may have impacted a traditional TIA prospective analysis and the retrospective TIA/TIE analyses exclude a number of the features in the schedule activity. and any other available project each step was done correctly. should be done in the following three ways: • prepare the as-built logic diagram. • prepare a TIE for each causative factor. this time. and are often not part of the contempochange order impacts. Liability. In either case. rately identified.” Stu Ockman and John Livengood. This is the most difficult step of this process Here Step 2—Prepare the As-Built Schedule Once the as-planned network has been identified it is copied and renamed the “as-built schedule. Preparation of the as-built logic ology based on the contemporaneous schedule updates. These dates are based on the contemporaneous schedule updates. • zeroing-out analysis. This process will correct for any erroneous data.“why” and not assigning responsibility or fault. • determine what activity in the schedule was impacted. Where it is known that an event occurred on a specific date. if submitted and approved after the NTP. and • identify and document the reason or cause for the event. and does not include information that was only available after the NTP. RFIs. The activities are added to the schedule based on the date when the impact occurred and the activity impacted.04. Step 5: Apply all Causative Factors to the As-Planned Schedule Once all of the causative factors have been identified they are added to a separate copy of the as-planned logic network. The analysis of the records will indicate if this where further research and adjustments are required. Care must be taken to insure that the rules of network development are rigorously maintained. produce a thorough analysis. out of sequence therefore the preparation of the as-built logic diagram will explain why the activities were performed in the Time Impact Evaluation (TIE) The definition and procedure for performing one version of order that they were. daily reports. The analyst should validate the as-planned logic network and confirm that is based upon the contractor’s thinking prior to the NTP.) in Construction Scheduling: Preparation. The more traditional TIA/TIE is primarily used behind deviations from plan may range from the simple and during the project for calculation of project delay relative to obvious to the complex. • Window analysis has no mechanism for representing and When the as-built schedule is completed the as-planned and asanalyzing acceleration. Step 1—Prepare the As-Planned Logic The first step in the evaluation is to obtain and validate the asplanned logic network. and. This is usually. that all too often. if progress reports.raneous project records. and activities between an event and the network. such as “force majeure” and the like. Preparation of al time impact analysis method outlined by Jon Wickwire (et the as-built logic diagram may require the addition of “added” al. The analyst should document this step carefully to avoid any suggestion of manipulation. The retrospective delays analysis using the O’Brien and force majeure delays. The TIE method work activity. When all the causation factors have been applied. but may not always be. • perform TIE analysis for each time period.” The analyst should avoid assigning any responsibility or fault to the factors at process. in step 4. The rational Claims [52]. stop work Plotnick modified TIE method involves the following eight step orders and the contractor’s own “dirty laundry. the window built schedules can be plotted on a side-by-side basis rough analysis method directly measures production delays.Step 3: Prepare the As-Built Logic Diagram The reality of scheduling is that activities will be performed assembly. as comparison. is acceleration through overtime or increased staffing. have specifically been applied to retrospective analyses [19]. it should be entered with a start no earlier than constraint. It StepDescription is further suggested that each category of delay should be sepa• prepare the as-planned logic. may need to be adjusted to correct any post NTP influences that could affect the delay analysis [20]. This • prepare the as-built schedule. the schedule.5 . • determine at what point in the project the factor impacted • apply all causative factors to the as-planned schedule.” The as-built project dates Step 6: Prepare a TIE for Each Causative Factor Prepare a TIE for each factor from the time impact developed are then inserted into the renamed as-planned network.

The modified TIE used in this paper tionships either to a causative factor or the start of the network.able documentation and schedule updates. causative factor are set at zero and the impacted schedule is recalculated. The durations of each category of [24]. would bring into question compensability. Once the ana. are zeroed out. TIE is typically not accurate for extended delay quantification been omitted. Again this is highly subjective.project’s critical path [27]. and an as-built constructed from the original asmore than one.” and employer caused delays. the responsibility for delays. There could be a series of be determined in a simple mathematical formula to solve for the causative factors which may not impact excusability but fourth unknown. recognizing change or delay should be prepared. Upon completion of each impact analysis.” Step 8: Choose Appropriate Time Periods The contractor’s TIE for the case study further differed from • Useful for prospective analysis.04. the causative events are prooverall impact of their absence on the network. The analyst is also open to challenge for selecting only those causative “If there are only a few causative factors impacting the as events which will bias the outcome. In the case study.2007 AACE International Transactions schedule will approximate the as-built schedule. In a prospective analyimprovement their absence makes in the schedule is noted. and if the durations are accurate. TIE can be an effective tool for analyzing delay. sis inserted anticipated delay is justified. involving changes and any analysis the delay duration is already defined. and so on. and entitlement need to be determined. and whatever further begs the question of manipulation. In the modified TIE as outlined in CPM in changes are zeroed out and a run is made to determine the Construction Management. modified TIE that is outlined in CPM in Construction Management. The “zeroing-out” process is a three step exercise to determine the contribution of each category of causative factor to the proj. and depending on the project circumstances. the Force Majeure event. and concurrent delays. The three categories of causation follow the three possible and the courts have recognized this may be needcauses of delay. The result of each iteration is recorded and based • Identifying all causative factors. All major and while it has its supporters it is not without its critics. that it will not always be suitable or even possible in some circumstances [25]. should bring network back to its as-planned status. ed from time to time. In CPM in Construction Management the process begins with the last activity (project raneous schedules to demonstrate the impact of a delay to the completion) and working backwards tracing the driving rela. force majeure (third party). The resulting calculation should cor. ous schedules. causation. effects of concurrency can be observed from the results of the • While it calculates the most likely impact of force majeure three separate runs. discrepancies noted and evaluated to determine if the TIEs were Consider the following points. • TIE is also considered to be costly requiring significant “Since each category of change is zeroed out step-by-step. was based on a fragnet. In retrospective Then. Assumptions are taken out of the process and the actual delays are highlighted.• If the as-planned logic network is invalid the analyst may be required to make a number of “corrections. impacted as-planned this path is the critical path of the TIE. it is suggested that the TIEs be selec• TIE requires the creation of fragnets to mimic the delaying tively zeroed out by category. and then when the analysis is complete. the owner-related TIEs.) Next delete all successors to the one or more planned logic network. pares as-impacted schedule to the as-built schedule. correctly applied. hold orders. one may not on the results of these calculations the effect of concurrency can be certain they have them all. planned logic network. may be quite time consuming. Similarly.over another. The analyst then com. as the example. an accurately written description of the facts and circumstances associated with a • The Society of Construction Law reduced its emphasis on the use of the time impact analysis technique. Repeat this process through all subsequent causative decisions were made. and contractor related TIEs are zeroed out. the contractor identified 22 windows or dates between selected causative events which he Difference Between Window Analysis and TIE Traditional TIA/TIE and window analysis rely on contempoused in the zeroing-out exercise. Window analysis is beneficial in “looking back” Reschedule and trace the network back to the next causative and determining exactly what occurred and when at the time event. it does not fully account for contractor’s caused delays. such as availcalculation is performed.Advantages and Disadvantages of TIE Each delay analysis technique has its strengths and weaknesslyst has determined the entire TIE information has been correctly inserted into the as-planned schedule a standard CPM es. contractor caused. The analyst needs to revisit the causative factors list to determine if any have • To quantify damages for extended general conditions. but minimal utility for supporting claims [26]. gressively zeroed out. the time and effort. one may be favored relate closely with the as-built schedule. For instance.6 . it opens the question to manipulation and owner caused delay. Window analysis capevents until reaching the start of the network tures the dynamic nature of the project’s critical path. (Note: there is often logic network.” While this is ect delay. and not the contractor’s contemporanecausative factors determined to be the “root” of the critical path. and more accurate quantification which can be directly compared with the true project delay requires the applicaStep 7: Zeroing-out Analysis tion of a methodology such as window analysis. and the final result effect. CDR.

of which 311 were compensable. the first • erroneous survey data. corridor. dates with the actual dates for specific periods (windows) of • biological – endangered species testing and relocation. or between windows three and four. The window analysis only quantifies gains and delays. thereby. The contractor reserved tlement. Window No. and all crossings. Each of the figures reference in the window discussions the 69 days that were deleted from the contract period.8M. poraneous project records. analysis progressively analyzes the planned activity start and end • delays and inconsistency in decision making. The WINDOW ANALYSIS vs. Compensability for the time extensions was not mine the findings and conclusions regarding responsibility. The Case Study Window Analysis The window analysis divided the project into 12 windows. The project consisted of the design and construction of based upon the analysis of key schedules selected from the elecapproximately 45 miles of a second mainline track along an tronic schedules created and used by the contractor on this projexisting 72-mile corridor which is owned by the state and main. during which the delay was quantified and analyzed through a review of the logic of the project schedule updates and contemOther improvements included the following. • construction and rehabilitation of bridges over 12 canal two. Relying on contemporaneous project records. through the vertical and geodetic surveys and track design sur• defective documents. 1-7 and 11 only. Window • railroad lack of resources. vide the owner with actual general conditions expenses for any time period on the project. 1 (16 Jan 02 – 28 Feb 02) There were two critical paths in window no. compensability and concurrency. The reader will note • upgrades to existing track. the identified critical activities).2M increas. These changes and the results of the analysis which determined responsibility. the Three change orders revised the contract extending the contract duration 184 calendar days while a fourth reduced the contract analyst must still review the project documentation to deterperiod 69 days. The project delivery method was a design/build contract. This analysis has to its rights to compensability for all time extensions and disputed be done regardless of the methodology employed to quantify delay. method is that. the window analysis criterion is based on contem. occurred. MODIFIED TIE window analysis also defined the periods for allocation of direct damages which was important in determining the cost of capiProject Overview The case study is drawn from a recently completed transporta. and. These updates were used to identify the critical path during this The owner issued 166 change orders totaling $84. the first an existing station. During the project the contractor submitted over 35 change summarize the both the quantification of the gains and delays. entiaddressed in any of the change orders. This paper will summarize the analyses of window nos. providing full closure along the entire 72-mile validated against subsequent schedule updates Nielsen-Wurster prepared monthly updates for the first eight months of project.2007 AACE International Transactions In contrast with the TIA or the modified TIE.” One of the biggest advantages of the windows analysis • differing site conditions. pened. requests went unresolved and constituted the contractor’s claim compensability and concurrency which are carried forward and which was deferred to the end of the project for resolution.tal. tion project for a Regional Transportation Authority in the US [29]. in this case it was necessary. and changes to the critical path as and when they ing the original contract amount of $231. based on the windows analysis it was THE CASE STUDY: possible to link cost with the compensable delay periods. more significant of these issues were the following. CDR.7 .6M to $315. the window periods described earlier in this paper in the win• renovation of nine existing stations.• railroad imposed design changes. time.• owner directed changes. the analysis is always looking at A significant benefit from the use of the window analysis was “the then critical work” and therefore captures the true project in the calculation of damages. Because of the late approval of the baseline schedule. avoids assumptions and subjectivity as to “what should or might have hap.period.ect. 1. Nielsen-Wurster’s schedule delay quantification was was 1. The contractor was able to prodynamics. eight months • upgrades to passenger information systems.• constructive acceleration. by using the then current schedule for each peri. update was not prepared until September 2002. and 65 days excusable only. • installation of automated grade-crossing warning devices at after NTP. However. poraneous project documentation and. The original contract duration excusable. Thus. and od until a new situation arises (that changes the base logic and • limited curfew approvals impacting live track work. The summarized in figure 7. requests for additional compensation and time. that there was no change in logic between windows one and • upgrades to a northern maintenance and layover facility. window analy. an award was made in August 2001 and notice to proceed as a result of the analysis it was determined that 376 days were (NTP) issued on January 2002. • construction of one new station and closing/demolition of dow analysis section.• multiple railroad changes in work rules impacting direct costs and loss of productivity. While this would appear to technically “violate” the methodology used to define crossings. bids were received in July 2001. and The RFP was issued in October 2000.04. sis does not require the preparation of fragnets [28].159 days with a planned completion on March 2005. The analysis identified appropriate project time windows tained and operated under an agreement with CSXT [30].

a new baseline survey was to be provid. 2 (1 Mar 02 . 1 (16 Jan 02 . The track design survey for effected by the revised alignment and the civil work in that area work area 1 was a finish-to-start successor to the vertical survey. all effective work was Near-critical activities were the bridge design and grade crossing delayed until receipt of the survey data. agreement plete the “70 percent ROW civil design.” Both paths com. however the design for work areas 2-4 On or prior to the NTP. effort to commence the ROW civil design. At that time the ROW civil design. and permit submission of 70 percent designs in lieu of restarting the 30 percent menced with the notice to proceed (NTP).design could proceed.2007 AACE International Transactions veys for work areas 1 – 4 and the second through the ROW civil this point to separate the design packages from the original design for work areas 1-4.04. Both of these activities were also subject to the surcivil design was “re-started. Work area one was not CDs because of a lack of flagmen. The paths would converge in a sub.31 May 02) Figure 3—Window No. 3 from the civil areas 1-4 and also the grade crossings for work areas 1-4. Figure 1 summarizes the start and the start and production gains and delays for window no.vey constraints and the track alignment. Figure 3 summarizes apparent in future windows. 3.” In this period the contractor sub. Window No.3 (1 Jun 02 . 2002.was reached to waive the 30 percent design. While the bridge mitted a revised track alignment that differed from the “con. 3 (01 Jun 02 – 30 Jun 02) The critical path changed in window no. 4 (1 Jul 02 – 31 Jul 02) The critical path continued through track design for work Window No. While revised alignment would continue to delay the project in this the schedule and contemporaneous documentation indicate an time period and it too was impacted by the late survey data. production gains and delays for window no. 2002. to issuing the sequent window as the survey data would be required to com. The project design logic was also revised at designs.design for each work area separately.would continue to be delayed.30 Jun 02) CDR. bridge design could not be approved tract” alignment. and work was issue in window three.1. proceed as planned.group of the 12 work areas into three packages.8 . The review and approval of the ed which was not completely provided until July 3. The start of the vertical and geodetic surveys were delayed 14 design with the revised survey data. The impact of the revised alignment will be until the track alignment was approved.28 Feb 02) Figure 2—Window No. In addition. While the formal approval was not issued until August Figure 1—Window No. The ROW design to track design. the delay to the project in this window able to proceed with completing the track and grade crossing was the alignment. Survey was no longer the delaying revised alignment was resolved on July 26.

equated to 108 calendar days. the direct costs for the testing and relocation of the endangered species therefore it was considered a differing site condition. through signaling design.2007 AACE International Transactions Figure 4—Window No. excusable events are concurrent. 5. 2002. A series of changes to the signaling The original contract duration had 117 available curfew perirequirements impacted rail construction.31 Oct 02) 8. while the removal of the endangered species could there were four severe weather events for which 21 calendar have been viewed as a force majeure event and excusable only. Window No. In addition. In addition.4 (1 Jul 02 . and was not attributed to either the alignment or survey issues. when the calendar for the live track work was changed from the global calendar to a Saturday only calenWindows Nos.04. updates.11. Because of numerous circumstances and factual issues it was studies. 7 was changes. 5 (01 Aug 02 – 31 Oct 02) The critical path through this window was the canal bridges This was not apparent during the regular project updates and and miscellaneous structures in work area 1. 6 was through ROW dar the impact to the project was unmistakable. Figure 4 summarizes the start and production combined to grant 26 days of excusable compensable time.original calendar for this window was the project “global calennical data. The completion would not be clearly demonstrated until the delay analysis was of the bridge design required bridge hydraulic and geotechnical performed. Concurrent with these delays nights. The latter was party delays. and The delay analysis based on the quantification obtained through the windows analysis methodology determined that 376 days CDR. During the period the live track work was being performed endangered species was found on the ROW which required test. 4. 6 and 7 (01 Nov 02 – 30 Apr 03) The critical path during window no. gains and delays for window no. during this period pensable. The bridge design was not until 18 months in the project that the parties had knowldelayed for 55 days in this period as a result of the alignment edge that the live track curfews would be limited to Saturday issues and design review delays. and delays.four planned curfews were cancelled because of other third ing and relocation to a permitted mitigation site. Figure 5 summarizes the start and production gains dar” consisting of a standard five-day week with six public holidays. there were 131 planned live track curfews required. This information was late. 5 (1 Aug 02 . The signaling design changes were excusable and com. With approved civil construction and track installation and window no. but did cause intermittent construction 135. the time becomes excusable and compensable. Window No.9 . an ods. the formal approval was not a constraint on completion therefore excusable and compensable. The were the late submission of the bridge hydraulics and geotech. This was never changed during the systematic schedule and delays for window no. However. 11 (01 Dec 03 – 31 Jan 06) The critical path through this window was the live track work. It should also be noted that the owner paid Window Analysis Summary Figure 7 summarizes the delay analysis for all 12 windows. thus extending the number of required curfews to more a disruption. The 18 additional Saturdays was a production delay.31 Jul 02) Figure 5—Window No. These two windows of the designs. days were granted. Figure 6 summarizes the start and producThe analysis considered that when excusable/compensable and tion gains and delays for window no. thus the critical path was the available Saturdays.

the 551 days of entitlement suggested that the contrac. Figure 9 also includes the actual start and finish dates (“CE-AS and CE-AF) for each event. days was excusable. through several strategies. and the Step One – Select the As-Planned Logic Network The submitted baseline schedule was “adjusted” to reflect the cumulative total float (“TF”) and total days added to the critical contractor’s execution plan pre-NTP. Further. This stage of the analysis was still involved with preparing the modified TIE. The which takes place in steps 5.04.2007 AACE International Transactions Figure 6—Window No. days excusable only. 6. Figure 8 is the graph.Step Three – Identify the Causative Events Figure 9 is the causative events table prepared for the analytor had.as-built data was validated with the contemporaneous project tractor contended therefore that the delayed completion of 376 records to insure accurate dates for each activity.” which when inserted into the baseline schedule resulted in an was used to input as-built data from the monthly updates. The “entitlement” to 551 calendar days of additional time. ing fault or responsibility. The con. collecting and inputting data. the holidays path by each event (“add”) which were generated from the calwere corrected.10 .31 Jan 06) Figure 7—Window Summary were excusable the detailed analysis of the project records ic the Contractor provided of the As-Planned Logic Network resulted in 311 days were excusable and compensable and 65 [32]. Step Two – Build the As-Built Schedule from the As-Planned Logic Network The Case Study Modified TIE Analysis The original as-planned logic network was saved and a copy The modified TIE analysis identified 43 “causative events. mitigated the delay and accelerated completion for which he was entitled to additional sis. The project actual finish adjusted baseline schedule was calculated to validate it reflect. The contractor stated that if a CDR. as well as technical corrections to eliminate culation of the impacted schedule and “zeroing-out” Analysis open ended start-to-start and finish-to-finish relationships. and all of the time was compensable.(“AF”) as determined by the impact of the causative event to the ed the initial scheduled completion date.critical path is also provided. In addition. and 7. and not assigncompensation. 11 (31 Dec 03 .

the effects of the “zeroing” out process in Construction Management. • The compensable extension of time therefore is 316 days.” The contractor’s not the best tool to determine compensability. The last causative event was the live track the window analysis methodology Nielsen-Wurster employed The reason stated in CPM in Construction events.” The total float at this exceeds the as-built.point was -235. “CE1010”. • It was entitled to 551 calendar days of delay. • repeat until reaching NTP. seven days. the expert did not appear overly concerned with an exact correlation noting that if the impacted as-planned station track centers 18’6”. the contractor • this process does not account for mitigation. When CE1094 was zeroed out. Figure 9 lists or mitigate the delays. “CE1034”. the project [34]. although it may have had a disruptive impact. days.Management.” The impacted as. it demonstrates entitlement. and the recog. • The time extension had an “arguable” concurrency of 57 • delete root cause event. “resurvey by TCRC WA8-11. In the end. for performing the windows analysis in addition CDR. in change was concurrent with the live track work. Step Five. and bears no resemblance to can be observed. The ical path.sions. five causative events with a total float of -227 and only one of these “CE1120” had an impact on the critical path. the project critical path. Six and Seven These steps are the core of the modified TIE analysis and When the other four events (“CE118”. (see figure 9) The contractor in its pres. the impacted different evaluation of the live track events.2007 AACE International Transactions Figure 8 . completion total float drops from -551 days to -495 days. This process was repeated back until the beginning of the durations of each category of causative factor are set at zero and the impacted schedule is recalculated.” DRC-WA6/7 30 percent ditches/retention/rtc. The next causative event and the “new root” is CE0132. therefore it is proceeded to perform a “windows analysis. “CE1094. However. • calculate longest path of as-impacted logic. And. • The actual project overrun is 373 days = 03/26/06 – Zeroing Out Exercise 03/18/05. include the “zeroing-out” process to determine the contribution “CE1114”) are zeroed out. “CELIVE. delay • It was entitled to an excusable extension of time of 373 days. the contractor made the following concluation is then recorded. then it never could have caused ing the 56 days the modified TIE indicated this event added to additional delay. Subsequent changes in as-built dates to determine “reasonableness. the zeroing out process continued through this instance. and After completing the modified TIE analysis.04. if root is NTP. The result of each iter.work area 11 would be included in a change order however this planned should closely correlate to the as-built. Several steps later. and the resurvey was as-planned was recalculated and the results compared with the not an issue at this point in the project. Once the events the as-built were recorded. they did not add any time to the critof each category of causative factor to the project delay. The total float at this point in the process is -227. • record project duration and root. caused by contractor. The windows analysis has a much were entered into the as-planned logic network.” When this event is zeroed out. windows analysis was based on the technique defined in CPM Referring to figure 9. • assign responsibility for roots. the “new root” nition that every contractor will make some efforts to accelerate is “CE1120. entation provided the following recap of these steps.As-Planned Logic Network causative event is not listed.project. reflect. • re-calculate longest path.11 . The Contractor’s Case Study “Windows Analysis” • determines excusability only.” The logic leading to the root was noted and the details of the as-impacted to Step Four – Add Causative Events This is the most difficult step of the process.

2007 AACE International Transactions Figure 9—Causative Events Table CDR.04.12 .

as opposed these events. the analyst must make some judgment is setting place the delays in the context of the time and conditions of the time frame of the individual windows. and without question will have a Step Two Once the window periods were identified. The second winON THE TWO METHODS dow began at that point and ran to the next “significant causative factor. benefits of the contemporaneous period analyses is that they Accordingly. The causative factors that began in win.was a public entity and so the production of documents was ance of work on the baseline network logic was then calculated. provide open access to each other’s documentation. The contractor’s “windows analysis” did not appear to conmethodology tribute to the analysis. which happens all anticipated duration rather than the actual durations. an as-built activities in the first window were statused to the end of the win. The anaSteps three and four of this process were repeated for the lyst is generally looking at the project records for each window remaining 27 window periods the contractor defined in step period. This was the method poraneous period analysis” relies on contemporaneous project records and begins with data gathering and data analysis. This process was followed until the end of the Window analysis has been acknowledged by many as the most last window was the project completion. and organization of the data will impact each technique for better or worse. 2 (TW02). if accurate daily records are available.” The following steps define the contractor’s of each delay. be constructed. Window analysis is lauded for its accuracy however that accuselected in a manner which influenced the outcome. TIE suggests that the Step Six analyst must identify all causative factors. made yet another copy of the as-planned logic network and The quality of the contemporaneous project documentation labeled it window no. One of the causative factor the result could be a day-by-day analysis. or a zeroing out exercise must be performed withto measuring the theoretical impact to the as-planned logic net. The activities in made its Prolog™ database available to Nielsen-Wurster which the second window were statused to the end of the window peri.” “but-for. either going to be done cooperatively or via a FOIA request. this window schedule file only the causative factors that started Very few projects have complete. The owner The impact if any from the causative factors and the perform. The text proposes a solution to this dilemma and a simplifica.2007 AACE International Transactions to the modified TIE is “…to measure the actual impact of vari. One of the unique features of this case study was that both Step Three Once the update was completed the window file was resched. and focusing on those records referencing events which one.sides reached agreement at the beginning of the evaluation to uled with the data date being the end date of the window one. either smaller windows may have to be used to segregate ous causative factors upon the progress of the work. The the contractor used in his analysis.arguable that one can not know if a causative factor impacted CDR. the contractor direct impact on choice of the technique to use for the analysis. the meeting minutes. The contractor dow two were inserted into this schedule file.37 The contractor used Prolog™ as its project management tool. accuracy. relate to the schedule activities which comprise the critical and near critical paths.the “windows analysis” only confirmed. Dividing the project into discrete windows also provides a very Step Five functional format for document review and analysis. Each commencement of the root causative factors to define the analytical technique whether a “what-if. or at least “…all In the event there are multiple overlapping causative factors causative factors that may have impacted the project [38]. RFIs and daily window no.” It is in a window period which are the responsibility of differing par. Windows analysis is arguably on of the challenges implying the selection of the time periods may been most persuasive of the techniques in arbitration or litigation.” or “contembeginning and end dates for each window. quality. The text includes a cautionary note that if the window is run to each and every accurate of the many delay analysis techniques [36]. ods.greatly facilitated the document review.reports had been entered directly into Prolog™. tempered with a dose of common schedule. albeit with some effort. The duration of the causative factors are the the absence of systematic schedule updates. Step Four and scanned all incoming and outgoing correspondence with The window one file (TW01) was then copied and labeled links to the database. 1 (TW01). The critics argue window analysis tion of the task of defining the windows in using the result of the is document intensive and places a heavy reliance on accurate zeroing out exercise in the modified TIE analysis to use the project records including systematic schedule updates. In in window one.ties. The too often. One can not underesod based on the actual start and finish dates from the as-built timate the beneficial impact this had on the analysis and the schedule. This could led to when they occurred. The skill dow based on the actual start and finish dates form the as-built and ability of the analyst are tested in these instances to provide experience and judgment. detailed documentation. On the other hand.in the window to identify the responsibility for the contribution work…[35]. sense.04.racy is not without its costs. ability to resolve all disputed items. which Step One The first step in this analysis was to define the window peri. The modified TIE concluded that the contractor was entitled to 551 days of compensable delay. The contractor inserted into will impact the analysis no matter what technique is employed.schedule can. The first window began with the NTP and ran to the beginOBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS ning of the first “significant” causative factor.13 .

04. then it never could have caused trary windows can affect the outcome ignores the methodology additional delay is leap of faith which was not supported by the Window analysis uses to select the windows. typically when the critical path changes. and invites the The analysis of the events in any window is performed on a daily basis to determine the gains or delays. the courts will reject a windows Inc.J. or at least those most likely to have impactthe use of window analysis however it will make it more diffi. then a daily window approach would be untenable. One critic has suggested that window analysis may produce tion of the as-built schedule. and.thing that we “try at home!” Citing Gulf Contracting and Titan nized. and a number of and in recreating these updates the analyst must rely solely on constructive changes. these fragnets are insertschedule. project records. the as-built completion which was 376 days late. Correction of schedule updates assume that it might reflect the contractors efforts to accelerate to reflect erroneous data must be done and attention given to or mitigate the delays is difficult to accept. The typical schedule updates are monthly. Window analysis is the only technique. (2002) [43].causative factor is not listed. As noted previously.al. However in the event the critical path changes between Pacific. As a consequence.I. Schedule updates can be recreated using the as-built network. with 166 change orders. once all the causative factors and their TIE informalogic changes which may not be reflected in an update. the Board of Contract great deal of conjecture and subjectivity [44]. as if periodic updating had been done during the course of construction. which address their effects are assessed.2007 AACE International Transactions the project until the evaluation is done. however in the window analysis methoddelineation of cause and effect.selected portions of the project. bias to one party or anoth. and flies in the face of taken into consideration when the baseline is modified [39]. Jon Wickwire views “…hypothetical impacted asupdates the window period could be selected to reflect that planned network delay analyses that do not take into account changes. Likewise they admit the process involves a not considered. and should not be somethe update that a change in the critical path would be recog.) and other authors. This appears to be unnecessary if inaccurate results when approved schedule updates are not regular monthly updates are available.actual events on the project as…unacceptable measures for evalnique. and thus is subject to the same challenges and limitaupdate period and thus a daily window is a more accurate tions applied to those methodologies. Dick According to George R. but is virtually impossible for dows analysis to evaluate the delay.14 . the real list of causative factors should information that was available at the time the update would have been a great deal longer. and with the monthly update and contem.delta of 175 days does not represent a close correlation and to come if it were not performed. In step 6. The “recreation” is necessary and would it substantially alter the out. Stumpf. A criticism of the various delay analysis techniques is how well is no practical way that these events could have been eliminatthey address the classification of delays and concurrency. It is not an arbi. In the more traditional TIA. Several of the steps in the modified TIE method beg the quesect which opens the analyst to challenges on why certain factors tion. Corp (1968) to P. The issue is with the updates periods and not the tech. As noted by Jon Wickwire (et.together.ed the critical path. If one considers window analysis to be expensive and time in a prospective manner and therefore the zeroing out activity is consuming. all others will certainly lead calculation is prepared. a standard CPM the analysis should be performed. The absence of systematic schedule updates does not prevent all causative factors. The third step calls for the preparation of an as-built logic diaanalysis that is based only on questionable schedule updates. In the final evaluation 18 of the 43 causative events did not add any time to the schedule. and inserting them into the as-planned logic cult. O’Brien and Plotnick admit that it may be possible for change in the logic. There have been performed. or else the analyst is pre. Further the assumption that if the each of these issues. the as-planned schedule and the contemporaneous ed into the updated schedules. The resulting calculation is then comCDR. why? The second step in the modified TIE is the construcwere considered over others. but the which also reflect actual changes in logic.S.to challenges and potentially the dismissal of the analysis all judging which factors may or may not have impacted the proj. several hundred RFIs. In the case study 43 causative events were defined. The scheduling analysis expert used win. The addition of activities after that fact to each.ology only those critical or near-critical actives which incur a er and the ease with which the outcome can be manipulated gain or a delay are analyzed. The fourth step in the modified TIE was the identification of technician.more exacting window analysis. not required [45].41 Other critics have sug. The suggestion that the selection of arbi. This was not the fault of the technique. Only those corrections which are required to insure the integrity of tion are inserted in the as-planned schedule. One might quesAppeals said that the scheduling expert failed to use a current tion the need to construct an as-built logic when the actual critical path method (CPM) schedule to evaluate the delay on sequence of work is seemingly apparent in the monthly updates.impacted as-planned schedule is compared with the as-built poraneous documentation. The zeroing out process in the modified TIE appears to share trary selection but one the CPM Schedule updates identify. The analyst must consider if the late vs. and the contributing causes and [40].” At this point in the process the of an update period. the schedule could be updated to schedule and the two should be relatively similar.several common traits with the “collapsed as-built” or “but-for” gested that the critical path may change in the middle of an analyses. and it is with replicate a delay is fraught with danger. the window can fall in the mid point uating project delays [46]. In this case “recreated” for any point in time in the period that the change the impacted as-planned reflected a completion date 551 days in the critical path occurred. Step 5 is the most difficult in the process. However. the project. Stumpf provides an example of a case in which there was a gram. This requires a great deal of care. and responsibility for greatest challenge. but a change in logic was the entire project. time impact analysis is usually applied approach [42]. a clear ed prior to the analysis. multiple court decision from M.

This is a problem for the TIE and not a “window” methodologies are summarized in figure 10.04. vs. The case study demonstrates that while similar titles are used the outcome of the comparison and the TIE indicated an entitlement of 551 days.window analysis.2007 AACE International Transactions pared with the as-built schedule and should approximate the as.ferent. In addition. if it does not it is probably incorrect. with very different results. In this case tion.15 . the actual delay of 376 days. Thus the to describe the analyses. TIE does not account for mitigabuilt schedule. therefore not best tool to determine compensability [47]. The differences in the two tified and corrected. the actual methods are dramatically difTIE did not correlate to the as-built and the discrepancies iden. Figure 10—Comparison of Window Methodologies CDR.

and the daily interest and cumulate cost of capital was a straight forward calculation. Finke. Z. ASCE. Shen. The direct costs were John Wiley & Sons. AACE International Transactions.2. the periods for the delay damages were already known. Carter. and Nielsen. Ciccarelli. 117 ity [48]. Gorman. No. luted methodology. causation and effects of each of the direct damage issues was critical in understanding the events 5. which when followed will lead to a more Causing Delay in the UAE Construction Industry. Selecting a Delay Analysis Method in Resolving Construction Claims.M. (2005). The window analysis made a second Callahan. The applicable interEngineering. The Planning & Scheduling – Time Impact Analysis. Kemyar. Recommended Practice No. Thus the road Construction Management and Economics. a fairly typical project. Baram. 40. the owner had a railroad to operate and with the comInternational Journal of Project Management. any time period on the project. 3. contribution to the quantification of damages and this was in 10. “Is there a correct way to perform delay analyses? Or if not a “correct way” is one 14. Clearly the courts over the past 32 years have demonstrated a keen understanding of CPM. review of the entitlement. Construction Briefing. Christopher. and rejected those that won’t. Cost these the disruption costs were appended. Journal of understood presentation of events. Cooperation and communication in lieu of litigation was the right choice. the window analysis method will provide 19. Orlando. Time Impact Analysis: If it’s such a great concept why is it that it almost never works! (And what you exact quantification of compensable days of delay and the perican do about it). that took place each and every day. in other words (December 1997). od when those delays occurred. Cost Engineering agreement the parties reached at the beginning of the Vol. AACE International. Delay Analysis – Issues Not for Granted. and Michael J.S. (Oct. Beihagi. to exchange documents and cooperate fully. Faridi. No. 4. George E. and S. and allocation of responsibilConstruction Engineering and Management. Evans M. ASCE 4th International Engineering And process and as a result it reduced the contractor’s original Construction Conference. Michael Ross Contemporaneous Analysis of process that while not perfect provides a fairly accurate portrayExcusable Delays. AACE International Transactions. Key Constraints Analysis with Integrated Production Scheduler. The Window Methods of Analyzing Delay Claims. 2006). AACE International Transaction. (July 28. 20. Patricia D. Mireille and Sabah Alkass. J. and does Claims. AACE International Transactions. (1994). Kris R. 1167-1176. Carson. D. PMICOS Conference. supportable. Cushman. AACE International Transactions (2000). and effort which are more than justified by the result. Bramble. New not need to be made more difficult with a complex and convoYork. Barba. Concurrent 1. Paul J. The window analysis provided an 7. 46. and more easily Engineer. One of the major contributions of the window analysis was in the calculation of damages. Hamed A. (July 2005). Inc. apportioned over the time in which the expenses were incurred. Wiley Law Publications. Past Progress and Future Problems. However. and were critical to the 6. 6 (June 2004). therefore with the window (1994). (2006) is getting narrower and the options fewer. Project Monitoring With Windows Analysis. acceptable result. Vol. Douglas. We return to our original question. Claim Analysis Nested in Schedule Updates.J. 12. (April 1998). method. Aspen Law and Business. 753ages more complex). (1992). and L. A Cost-Effective Delay Analysis Technique. The owner was prepared to litigate. 4. Window Analysis: The Method and the Myth. and accurate exposition of the delay?” Douglas F. Construction Delay Claims. 131(7). Management of Concurrent Delay in Construction.2007 AACE International Transactions he success of this effort was in great part because of the 2. (2000). Fondahl. Construction Superconference (2003). and increase ridership. 1990): 386-401. Analysis. pp. and 16. REFERENCES 21. and in some cases a 17. 764 (2005). 145 pletion of the double tracking was in a position to significantly 155 (2006). Galloway. and to 11. Journal of Construction cumulative impact which may make the quantification of damEngineering and Management. (Draft – International Construction Law Review. request for compensation. Significant Factors precise roadmap. Evans M. Barba. Proving and Pricing Construction Presenting a detailed CPM analysis is hard enough. The contractor’s cost system was able to generate the actual general conditions expenses for 8. Fruchtman. AACE International Transactions. Their opinions have defined a direction. The 4. Vol. Prospective and Retrospective Time Impact preparation of the window analysis. D. delay. al of the plan and actual execution of the work. T CDR. George E. Cuningham.. negotiations. A. (2005).. ASCE. Cost Engineering.W.04. The Five Commandments of Construction Project Delay Analysis.7. Chua. improve service. 2nd Edition. Eric.K.1 Schedule Delay in International Contracts. E.16 . Florida (2006). 24. Al-Saggaf. Coppi. Third Edition. and M. a reasonable level of project documentation. if necessary. Bubshait. Delay Analysis-Eliminating the Smoke and Mirrors. Battikha. (1991): pp. analysis it was possible to link cost with the compensable delay periods. better than another and more likely to provide a more 15. El-Sayegh. Pattanakitchamroon. a scheduling 18. 12. Robert F. and T. (Note that this example did not experience multiple constant and pervasive changes that are referred to in the industry as 13. That said. John D. The Development of the Construction the parties with a more accurate.H. 39. the determination of the cost of capital. the manifestations of all manner of delay analyses techniques. Arditi. and Michael T. Cohen. Part Peer Review) (December 2006). 380-392. Baram. No. est rate for each period was obtained. (2001). The parties had agreed to the cost quantification 9. This can be achieved at a cost and expenditure of time 3. J. Barry B. Volume 7. assuming pp. Documenting the Schedule Basis. 24. Abdulaziz A.

Jon M. The Construction Lawyer. Vol. Washington. Barba. Zack. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Time Impact Analysis.. Satish B. Cost Engineering. 35. 36. 11.. 30. Midgette. 1998). 27(1). But-For Schedules—Analysis and Defense. No. Sixth Edition. 56. and Gregory B.Final Livengood. Vol. Ron. Claims From the Contractor’s Perspective. Warner Construction Civil Engineering. Lerman. 41. Resolution Through an Understanding of the Law Lee. and K. R. CPM in 55. Engineering 46(1) (2004). Inc. Analysis: Collapsed As-Built Scheduling for Beginners. 2000). and Claims. 2004). P. 2007 AACE International Transactions Dissertation. Newsletter (November 2006). ASCE 44. New York (2003). (August. 119. Al-Gahtani. Changes and Disputes Resolution. Second Edition. 46(6). Cost Engineering 37(2) (February Hegazy.17 . Willis. Sandlin. Successful Claims ASCE 131(5). Department of Quantification in Acceleration.C.M. Long D. Zack. 31. Hillman. 48. Levin. L. Journal of (1967). Winter. Bell. Construction Contract Claims. ASCE Press. Issues and Developments. London Ostrowski. 24. (2005). (2005). and Lansford C. ASCE 51. Wail. ejournal. Construction Projects. Weist.22. Jeremy and Peter Johnson. 522-532. Stoll.” Washington. Keith. 3. Quantifying and Apportioning Delay on 125(3). Doctoral CDR. 9. “Phased (Sept. 131(5). Construction Scheduling: Baseline Updates. Cost 57.J. Ottesen. 29.J. Daily Windows Delay Analysis. Sgarlata. pp. California (2006). (2000). Popescu-Kohler. J. Hurlbut. John C. Jyh-Bin. Construction Engineering and Management. 1 (January 2006).13. Yang. No. Modification Impact Evaluation Guide. George R. McGraw-Hill. M. 34. “VACPM Handbook.R. Masters Thesis. Calculating Imaginary Numbers: Time Report. pp. Delay Claims. Scheduling Practices and Project Success. Methodologies For Determining Construction Contract York. Lowe. Lawyer (October 1999) pp. J. (September 1993). 38. CM AACE International Transactions. Ontario. Schumacher. AACE pp. T. 27. Vera A. Second Edition. Delay Analysis 54. and Stuart Ockman. Optimization of Resource Allocation and 43. (December 9. University of Texas. unpublished paper. Resolution of Complex New York (2006). James J. Construction Engineering and Management. Vol. Management Science. and C. Scott B. P 480. (Winter 2007). Contracts. Hegazy. 42. A Report on the Meeting of the Society of Ockman.. 8. Evaluation of the Resource. Cost Engineering. and Yi-Yao Lee. School of Aspen Publishers. 37. presented to the faculty Preparation. Root Cause Analysis – a Distinctive View on Construction Griffith. 16-20. Time Impact Analysis In Engineering & Contracting Projects: Leveling Using Genetic Algorithms. Jae-Seob Construction Delay Analysis Method. Driscoll. Evans M. Current Delay 53. and Stephen B. SCDOT Research Project 652. A. 45. Richard H. Claims Schedule Development and 47. Civil Engineering. 505-512. Measuring Success with Claims Management.. Construction Delay Analysis Under Multiple 52. Franco Caron. 39. K. 408-11. Consultants. Simone Valentini. 12-21. 13(6) Constrained Critical Path Method Algorithms. O’Brien.S. Canada. Claimsmanship: Current Perspective. 27-30. Construction Management. (2003). Second Edition. Governing Allocation of Risk for Delay and Disruption. Journal of An Industrial Case. de la Garza. 32. Zang. Cost Engineering. (2007). University of European Journal of Operational Research (1985). 2003). Concurrent Delay Analysis in Litigation. Clemson University. and Michael T. Sanvito. 42. System Requirement Analysis of a Construction Delay Analysis Engineering. Office of the Chief of Engineers. Barton Lee. Dirk D. Vol. (April. Considering Resource Allocation. Chih-Kuei Kao. Improvements to Construction Delay Analysis Techniques. 48. EP415-1-3. 33. and William Ibbs. The Construction Analysis Techniques and Improvements. Schedule Delay Analysis. D. 43. 7. Iuliana Anamaria. Menesi. and Stephen B. Critical Path Analysis and Resource Constrained Project Scheduling-Theory and Practice. Protocol. Austin. Department of the Army. A Heuristic Model for Scheduling large Projects with Limited Resources.50. Plotnick. Dr. Gautreaux. Concentrated Window Analysis Results. Nguyen. D. Stumpf.M. L. No. 167-175. (2000). Department of Veterans Affairs. James Edward O’Reilly. Pickavance. Cost 48. Thomas J. and R. Wickwire. Wickwire. Stuart. Jeffery. CMAA (2004). Hurlbut and Lance J. Use of Critical Path Method Techniques in McCullough. pp. PMI Proceedings (1986). No. International Transactions. 40.D. Windows Approach. and J. 58. 23. No. CPM Schedules in Construction Contract Claims. Kim. ISCAR (2006). No. Sapple. (September 2006). 288-391 International Transactions (1999). T. Wickwire. Mohan. 59. 25. AACE Claims. View From Across the Pond: An American Perspective on the Society of Construction Law’s Delay and Disruption 49. 1995): pp. 28. LLP Reference Publishing. of the University of Waterloo. (2006). and Khalid S. (1999). Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 26. Time And Evaluating Contract Time Extensions .C. Lovejoy. Schedule Delay Analysis: Modified School. 2006). Delay and Disruption in Construction Vol.” Cost Engineering.04. James G. New 46. Jon M. Winter. (2004): pp. pp. Lee. Berkeley. 9. 1974-1988. Cost Engineering Vol. Paolo. Construction Law Report by Samuel Townend. Jon M. (1998). presented to the faculty of the Graduate Gothand. London. Robert B. (2005). and Fredric L.A. California. Use of Critical Path Method on Contract Claims-2000. (August 2001). Brasco. Victor. Lare. AACE International Transactions. 45. System. Liability. (July. M. James G.

4901 NW 17th Way. James G. 64. Cost Engineering. Pradip M. AACE International Transaction (1999). Construction Project Delay Analysis. Zack. Ljubljana. Calculation and Recovery of Home Office Overhead. 23-28..745. Bruce Evans Hallock PSP CFCC Senior Associate The Nielsen-Wurster Group. US Phone: +1. James G. 2006). AACE International Transactions (2001).04. 503 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33309. Ste. Mr.954. Schedule Delay Analysis. US Phone: +1. NJ 08540-1423. 1060 State Road. Inc.18 . Zack. Mehta Senior Associate The Nielson-Wurster Group. Slovenia (April 26. 38(3). Zafar. James G. James G Zack. pp.com CDR. 62. James G.609. Inc.7474 Email: brucenwg@aol. 2007 AACE International Transactions Zack. Zack. 61. Ste. presentation (2003).7300 X 32 Email: pradipnwg@aol. Pacing Delay – the Practical Effect. 63. Zartab Q. Delay and Delay Anlysis: Isn’t it Simple? First ICEC and IPMA Global Congress on Project Management. Is there Agreement. (March 1996). 200 Princeton.60.497.com Mr.

Jon M.2007 AACE International Transactions Attachment A Summary of the Literature on the Strengths and Weaknesses of Current Delay Analysis Methodologies The literary review set forth in this Attachment A is based on the review provided in the article entitled “Selecting a Delay Analysis Method in Resolving Construction Claims” by David Arditi and Thanat Pattanakitchamroon [49].04. Jr. and in some instances corrected. and James G. and Stuart Ockman. The original review comments are on the first line of the matrix opposite the name of the cited author and the bibliography reference. the original comments were expanded. CDR. Zack. Stuart. Is there Agreement” [61]. “Schedule Delay Analysis.” [53].19 . In addition. Wickwire. “The Window Methods of Analyzing Delay Claims” [5]. “Measuring Success with Claims Management. Supplemental comments are in italics on the second line under the article citation.” [37]. Ockman. Four additional articles were added to those reviewed in the original paper: George Baram. “Use of Critical Path Method on Contract Claims -2000. The extent of the literature and the interest in the subject warrants a complete historiography of delay analysis techniques.

2007 AACE International Transactions CDR.04.20 .

04.21 .2007 AACE International Transactions CDR.

2007 AACE International Transactions CDR.22 .04.

23 .04.2007 AACE International Transactions CDR.

24 .2007 AACE International Transactions CDR.04.

2007 AACE International Transactions CDR.04.25 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful