Methods of

Retrospective Analysis

Karen Best
 Introduction
• Why delay Analysis?
• Delays happen
• Many sides to story
• Can give clearer picture

• Topics:
• Definitions
• Methods
• Choosing a Method
• Smoke and Mirrors
Definitions
 Definitions
• Delay Analysis
• Exercise to ascertain effect of delay events on
planned programme
• Assess delay to completion, delay to progress,
disruption
• Retrospective Analysis
• Contemporaneous vs Retrospective
• No agreement on rules or terminology; SCL
Protocol gives definitions
• May or may not be critical path analysis
 Methods of
Retrospective Analysis
 Methods of Retrospective Analysis

• Non-critical path methods

• Static critical path methods

• Dynamic critical path methods

 Non-critical
path methods
Non-critical path methods
• Developed before Critical Path programmes

• Rely on persuasive argument

• Limited use to demonstrate cause and effect

• Three types:
1. Cause/effect matrix

2. Scott schedules

3. As-planned –v- As-built

As-planned –v- As built

• May have a Critical Path network as the as-

planned programme;
• Simply compares;
– Planned period (contractors programme)
– Actual construction period
– Difference = delay & relief from LADs ( EOT)

• It is often referred to as a “total time claim”

As-planned –v- As built

Planned bars
1. identify effect

2. allocate a cause
As built bars DELAY

3. argue that the effect

has resulted from the
cause
As-planned –v- As built: Planned Programme

Completion date 27 April 2004

As-planned –v- As built: As Built Programme

Completion date 4 May 2004

As-planned –v- As built

Possible Delaying Events:

1. Setting out error

2. Rain
3. Pumps failure and excavation collapse
4. Late bar bending schedules
5. Change of waterproofing to admix
As-planned –v- As built: Contractor’s Version

Completion date 4 May 2004: 7d EOT

As-planned –v- As built: Employer’s Version

Completion date 4 May 2004: NO EOT

As-planned –v- As built
Limitations
• Easily manipulated to suit the preferred case
• Not related to the critical path - Assertion of
criticality not deductive proof of criticality
• Difficulty with float in programme
• Cannot show deal with concurrent delays,
acceleration or re-sequencing
As-planned –v- As built
Uses
• Cheap and quick to carry out
• Useful review of delays and possible merits of
allegations
• Acceptable proof where the effect is indisputably
on the Critical Path, eg;
• at the start of the job,
• at the end of the job
• total suspension of the work,
Static critical
path methods
Static critical path methods
• The critical path
– is fixed, either at the start of the job or the end;
– is not free to change dynamically as a result of progress
achieved or re-sequencing;
– will only change as a result of imposed events

• Two methods
1. As-planned impacted
2. As-built but-for [or collapsed as-built]
As-planned impacted analysis
• Based on the planned programme
• Demonstrate effect of employer delay events
on the planned programme by;
1. Identify the planned programme/ baseline
2. Establish excusable event based on planned intent
3. Add the event to the programme & recalculate the
completion date
4. Claim relief for the shift in timing on the programme
5. Repeat for next event
As-planned impacted analysis

1. Start with
planned programme
foundations

Contractual
Completion
Critical
structure
Date
roof & cladding

inspections

Planned bar – note

here these are all on
the critical path
As-planned impacted analysis

Period of 2. Identify a causal

Delay
event
foundations

Contractual
Unforeseen ground Completion
Critical
structure Date

roof & cladding

Employer’s inspections
risk event
Activity depicting
event
As-planned impacted analysis

Revised
Implied delay 3. Calculate effect Completion
to progress
Date

foundations

Contractual
Unforeseen ground Completion
Date
structure

roof & cladding

Causes delay to inspections

progress Causes delay to
completion
Planned programme

Completion date 27 April 2004

Event 1

Completion date 5 May 2004: 8 days EOT

Event 2

Completion date 10 May 2004: 13 days EOT

Event 3

Completion date 6 May 2004: 9 days EOT

As-planned Impacted

Limitations
• Limited application - theoretical
• Ignores the as built history of the works
• Ignores the Contractor’s own delays
• Difficult to deal effectively with concurrency
• It ignores the effect of any change in sequence
or acceleration.
As-planned Impacted
Uses
• Fairly quick and easy to carry out
• It can be used where as-built information is
limited/ does not exist
• Can be suitable method of proof if:
• The planned programme was realistic and achievable;
• The critical path remains largely unchanged;
• The events were undisputably on the critical path
As-built-but-for/ Collapsed As built

• Performed after the works are completed

using as built programme as baseline
• Evaluates effect of Events on the basis of the
sequence of work that was actually followed
• Analyses the earliest completion date but-for
Delay Event/s
As-built-but-for/ Collapsed As built

Step 1: Creation of baseline

• Create/assess as built programme
• Identify variances between planned & actual
performance & identify cause for each
• Produce simulated as built programme
– Wind back the data-date
– Remove the “fixed” dates
– Substitute with planned dates and a logic network
• Logic can be based on updated progressed
programmes produced during works
As-built-but-for/ Collapsed As built

Step 2: Remove delay events from

simulated as-built programme
• Ensure activity for each cause in programme
• Remove delaying activities in reverse
chronological order & recalculate completion
date
As-built-but-for/ Collapsed As built

1. identify 2. allocate a
secondary effect cause
Actual
Delay to
Original
progress Completion
duration Date
Unforeseen ground

foundations
structure
roof & cladding
inspections
Actual dates for activity

Possible cause of delay

As-built-but-for/ Collapsed As built

3. Convert to
critical path
foundations
program Actual
Completion
Date
Unforeseen ground

structure

Planned dates for activity roof & cladding

Possible cause of delay inspections

Logic link
 As-built-but-for/ Collapsed As built
Delay to
Delay to 4. Subtract completion
progress identified effect
foundations

Unforeseen ground Earliest

Completion
Reduced to zero days Date
structure

roof & cladding

inspections
As-built-but-for: As built programme

Completion date 4 May 2004

As-built-but-for: With events

Completion date 4 May 2004

As-built-but-for: Minus Event3

Completion date 6 May 2004:2d Acceleration

As-built-but-for: Minus Event 2

Completion date 6 May 2004: No effect/EOT

As-built-but-for: Minus event 1

Completion date 6 May 2004: No effect/EOT

As-built-but-for/ Collapsed As built
Limitations
• Difficult/expensive to perform
• needs good as built records
• Logic inserted may be challenged;
• Assumes static unchanging critical path;
• Meaningless if the work was re-sequenced or
acceleration measures implemented;
• Does not represent the effect of Events on the
contractors intention at the time
As-built-but-for/ Collapsed As built
Uses
• Popular– based on actual built times
• Credible and easily understood
• Can be used if no planned programme
• Demonstrates effect of actual timing of event,
in sequence in which work was actually built
• Can be used to demonstrate both
– Excusable delay
– Compensable delay ie loss and expense was suffered
Dynamic critical
path methods
Dynamic critical path methods

• Takes into consideration the changing critical

path throughout the course of the contract

• Time Impact Analysis (USA)

– Windows analysis [predetermined calendar date

or period]

– Snapshot analysis [date event occurs]

Time Impact Analysis
• Analysis of the effects of delays
– over the life of a project,
– sequentially,
– In light of the Contractor’s progress & future
intentions

• Update Contractor’s current planned

programme to period before the Event.

• Add Event to programme & calculate effect

upon the planned programme
Time Impact Analysis
Preparation:
• Which programme current at time of Event?
• Current programme reasonable & fit for use
as a base-line?
• Re-create or review as-built programme.
• Assess progress information.
• Identify events & create ‘Fragnet’ for each
event.
• List Events chronologically
Time Impact Analysis
Methodology:
• Update and re-sequence the relevant
programme.
• Recalculate critical path & revised
Completion Date.
• Add Event to the programme.
• Recalculate the critical path & Completion
date.
• Repeat for each update and Event.
Time Impact Analysis
As-planned programme

Contractual
foundations Completion
Critical
Date

structure

roof & cladding

inspections

Planned bar
Time Impact Analysis
Revised
Completion
Updated programme Critical Date
after
Update
Slow
Contractual
progress foundations Completion
Critical
Date

structure

roof & cladding

Updated
data inspections
date Progress to activity

Culpable delay
 Time Impact Analysis
Revised
Completion
Updated programme Critical Date
after
Update

Contractual
foundations Completion
Critical
Unforeseen Date
ground
structure

roof & cladding

Updated Period
data of delay inspections
date Culpable delay period

Period of delay
 Time Impact Analysis
Revised
Impacted programme Completion
Critical
Date after
Foundations Event
Remainder of
completed to Contractual
foundations
update date Completion
Critical
Unforeseen Date
ground
structure

roof & cladding

Updated
data 15 days
inspections
date

Culpable delay period

Employer delay period
Time Impact Analysis: Update 1

Completion date 30 April 2004: 3d Delay

Time Impact Analysis: Event 1

Completion date 5 May 2004: 5d EOT

Time Impact Analysis: Update 2

Completion date 11 May 2004: 6d Delay

Time Impact Analysis: Event 2

Completion date 11 May 2004: No EOT

Time Impact Analysis: Event 3

Completion date 4 May 2004: Acceleration/No EOT

Time Impact Analysis
Limitations:
• Time consuming and expensive
• Changes to the baseline can involve
subjective assessment
• If progress information is poor then the
results become very theoretical
• If progress updates not available then
identification of delays is time-consuming
Time Impact Analysis
Uses:
• Has potential to be most accurate
• Can be used to resolve complex delay
scenarios including concurrency,
acceleration, intermittant disruption
• Takes Contractor’s slow progress into
account
• If liability is disputed revised answer can be
easily given
• Can deal with multiple Key Dates &
Milestones
Choosing a Method
Choosing a method of retrospective
delay analysis

1. What does the contract say?

– Likely or Actual delay to completion
– Method Specified
2. What information is available?
3. What time or resources for analysis are
available?
 Yes
No
As built records available? Retrospectively
create a CPM
Programme programme
As-Planned available?
–v-
As-
As-Built
CPM ? Planned
Measures the difference Impacted
between planned and
actual activity durations Updated with Illustrates the
progress ? effect of an
Event on the
Retrospectively chosen
Recovery or create a CPM programme

Measures the effect of an acceleration ? programme

Event on completion by
tracing shift in the critical Measures the effect of an Event
path through changing intent Time Impact As-Built on completion in the sequence
Analysis But-For of construction finally followed
Smoke and Mirrors
Smoke and mirrors
• Smoke and mirrors - analysis that is not what
it is described to be by its originator

• Found in Analysts report – often terminology

• API & ABBF methodologies better understood

• Few really understand Time Impact Analysis

Summary
• Definitions
• Explained Methodologies
– As planned versus As built
– As planned Impacted
– Collapsed As built
– Time Impact Analysis

• Explained when to use each

• Smoke and mirrors
Any Questions?