CDR-1188

AACE International Recommended Practice

No. 29R-03 For Forensic Schedule Analysis
Points to Missing Method in the
Society of Construction Law’s
Delay and Disruption Protocol
Mark F. Nagata, PSP
ABSTRACT—The two best-known publications in the construction industry that identify and
describe forensic schedule (program) analysis methods are the AACE International Recommended
Practice No. 29R-03 for Forensic Schedule Analysis (RP-FSA) and The Society of Construction Law’s
Delay and Disruption Protocol (DDP). AACE International’s RP-FSA identifies five basic forensic
schedule analysis methods, but does not identify a “preferred” method. The DDP identifies only
four of the basic methods, and states that the Retrospective Time Impact Analysis is the “best
technique” for determining the time extension that a contractor should be granted because of an
owner’s delay. Inexplicably, the DDP omits the widely-accepted “Contemporaneous Analysis”
method (MIPs 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 from the RP-FSA, also called the Contemporaneous Period Analysis,
Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis, or Windows Analysis). This paper and presentation will
identify the five basic methods, describe their strengths and weaknesses, and demonstrate why the
Contemporaneous Analysis Method, which was omitted by the DDP, is often the most accurate
method to forensically identify and measure delays.

CDR-1188.i
 Table of Contents

Abstract i

List of Tables iii

List of Figures iv

Introduction 1

What is a Forensic Schedule Analysis 1

Purpose of AACE RP-FSA and SCL’s

DDP 2
First Major Difference –
Recommending a Forensic Schedule
Analysis Method 3
Which Forensic Schedule Analysis
Methods are in AACE RP-FSA 5
Which Forensic Schedule Analysis
Methods are in the SCL’s DDP 8
What’s the Missing Forensic
Schedule Analysis Method? 8
Forensic Schedule Analysis Methods:
Discussion, Strengths, and
Weaknesses 8

As-Planned vs. As-Built Method 9

Impacted As-Planned Method 10

Collapsed As-Built Method 12

Retrospective Time Impact Analysis 16

Contemporaneous Analysis Method 20

Conclusion 29

Bibliography 30

CDR-1188.ii
ii
 List of Tables

Table 1, “List of MIPs in RP-FSA” 7

Table 2, “Conversion of 9 MIPs to 5 Basic Methods” 7

Table 3, “Comparison of Forensic Schedule Analysis

Methods in the RP-FSA and the DDP” 8

Table 4, “As-Planned vs. As-Built Method: Strengths and

Weaknesses” 10
Table 5, “Impacted As-Planned Method: Strengths and
Weaknesses” 12
Table 6, “Collapsed As-Built Method: Strengths and
Weaknesses” 16
Table 7, “Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method:
Strengths and Weaknesses” 20
Table 8, “Contemporaneous Analysis Method: Strengths
and Weaknesses” 29

CDR-1188.iii
 List of Figures

Figure 1 “RP-FSA Graphic Representation of Retrospective MIPs 3.1

through 3.9” 6
Figure 2 “Example of an As-Planned vs. As-Build Method”
9
Figure 3 “Example of Impacted As-Planned Method”
11
Figure 4 “Example of Collapsed As-Built Method”
13
Figure 5 “Collapsed As-Built Method: Example 1”
14
Figure 6 “Collapsed As-Built Method: Example 2”
15
Figure 7 “Example of a Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method”
17
Figure 8 “Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method: Owner
Delay” 18
Figure 9 “Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method: Contractor
Delay” 19
Figure 10 “Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method:
Comparison of As-Planned and As-Built Schedules” 21
Figure 11 “Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity ‘A’
Progress” 22
Figure 12 “Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity ‘B’
Progress” 23
Figure 13 “Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity ‘C’
Progress” 24
Figure 14 “Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity ‘E’,
Added Work” 25
Figure 15 “Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity ‘D’
Progress” 26
Figure 16 “Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity ‘E’
Progress” 27
Figure 17 “Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Summary
of Delays 28

CDR-1188.iv
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Introduction
Forensic schedule analysis has experienced an evolution of sorts. In the past, the landscape of
forensic schedule analysis was not as open and transparent as it is today. Delay experts often
performed their schedule analyses in a “black box,” and did not provide sufficient explanation
of how their analyses were performed to enable verification and duplication of their analysis
results. To counter this, the forensic construction consultant community has now developed
resources that identify the known forensic schedule analysis methods and describe how those
techniques should be performed.

Two of the best-known publications in the construction industry are the AACE International
(AACE) Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 for Forensic Schedule Analysis (RP-FSA [1] and The
Society of Construction Law’s (SCL) Delay and Disruption Protocol (DDP) [2]. When comparing
these two publications, there are two major differences. The first difference is that the SCL’s
DDP recommends the Retrospective Time Impact Analysis as the “best technique” for
determining the time extension that a contractor should be granted because of an owner delay,
whereas the AACE RP-FSA chooses not to recommend one method over another. The second
difference is that the SCL’s DDP is missing the widely-accepted “Contemporaneous Analysis”
method (MIPs 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 from the RP-FSA, also known as the Contemporaneous Period
Analysis, Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis, or Windows Analysis).

This paper and presentation will discuss these two major differences and identify the five basic
forensic schedule delay analysis method categories, describe their strengths and weaknesses,
and demonstrate why the contemporaneous method, which was omitted by the SCL’s DDP, is
often the most accurate method to forensically identify and measure delays.

What Is Forensic Schedule Analysis?

Before we get started, we should probably attempt to define the topic that we are discussing to
ensure that we are all on the same page and have the same level of understanding from the
start. So, what is “forensic schedule analysis?” The AACE RP-FSA defines forensic schedule
analysis as follows [1]:

Forensic scheduling analysis refers to the study and investigation

of events using CPM or other recognized schedule calculation
methods. It is recognized that such analyses may potentially be
used in a legal proceeding. It is the study of how actual events
interacted in the context of a complex model for the purpose of
understanding the significance of a specific deviation or series of
deviations from some baseline model and their role in
determining the sequence of tasks within the complex network.

Said another way, forensic schedule analysis can also be defined as the identification and
measurement of a project’s delays using the project’s critical path method (CPM) schedules
after the delay(s) occurred.

CDR-1188.1
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Purpose of AACE RP-FSA and SCL’s DDP

It is important to note that the AACE RP-FSA’s sole purpose was [1]:

…to provide a unifying reference of basic technical principles and

guidelines for the application of critical path method (CPM)
scheduling in forensic schedule analysis. In providing this
reference, the RP will foster competent schedule analysis and
furnish the industry as whole with the necessary technical
information to categorize and evaluate the varying forensic
schedule analysis methods. The RP discusses certain methods of
schedule delay analysis, irrespective of whether these methods
have been deemed acceptable or unacceptable by courts or
government boards in various countries around the globe.

Whereas the SCL describes the purpose of the DDP as follows [2]:

A. The object of the Protocol is to provide useful guidance on

some of the common issues that arise on construction
contracts, where one party wishes to recover from the other
an extension of time and/or compensation for the additional
time spent and the resources used to complete the project.
The purpose of the Protocol is to provide a means by which
the parties can resolve these matters and avoid unnecessary
disputes…

C. The Protocol recognizes that construction contracts must

provide the mechanisms to manage change. Although all the
common standard forms of contract provide for the
assessment of delay and compensation for prolongation, they
do not all do so completely, or in exactly the same way. The
Protocol contains guidance as to matters which should be
addressed when the contract is being drafted and negotiated.
The guidance is intended to be generally applicable to any
contract that provides for the management of delay and
disruption.

D. The aim is that, in time, most contracts will adopt the

Protocol’s guidance as the best way to deal with delay and
disruption issues…

The primary difference between the expressed purpose of both publications is that the AACE
RP-FSA’s purpose is limited to identifying and describing only forensic schedule analysis
methods, whereas the SCL’s DDP provides guidance on the evaluation of additional contract
time both during active projects and in forensic or after-the-fact evaluations.

CDR-1188.2
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

First Major Difference – Recommending a Forensic Schedule Analysis Method

As stated above, the first major difference between the AACE RP-FSA and the SCL’s DDP is the
position that each of the publications take on ranking or recommending one forensic schedule
analysis method over another.

For example, Section 1.3. Scope and Focus of the RP-FSA, explicitly states that the intent of the
publication is not to recommend the use of one forensic schedule analysis method over
another, as follows [1]:

1.3. Scope and Focus

The scope and focus of this RP are:
a. This RP covers the technical aspects of forensic schedule
analysis methods. It identifies, defines, and describes the
usage of various forensic analysis methods in current use.
It is not the intent of the RP to exclude or to endorse any
method over others. However, it offers caveats and
considerations for usage and cites the best current
practices and implementation for each method.
[emphasis added]

To support this decision the RP-FSA also states [1]:

Forensic schedule analysis, like many other technical fields, is

both a science and an art. As such, it relies upon professional
judgment and expert opinion and usually requires many
subjective decisions. One of the most important of these
decisions is what technical approach should be used to measure
or quantify delay and identify the effected activities in order to
focus on causation.

AACE recognizes that the method(s) of analysis to be used in a

given situation, and the manner in which a particular method
might be implemented, are dependent upon the contract, the
facts, applicable law, availability and quality of contemporaneous
project documentation, and other circumstances particular to a
given situation.

Conversely, the SCL’s DDP takes a different position on recommending a schedule analysis
method in a forensic or after-the-fact evaluation. In the Guidance Section 4, titled, Guidelines
on dealing with disputed extension of time issues after completion of the project – retrospective
delay analysis, it discusses four different schedule delay analysis methods (As-planned vs. As-

CDR-1188.3
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

built, Impacted As-planned, Collapsed As-Built, and Time Impact Analysis) and concludes that
the [2]:

Time impact analysis is based on the effect of delay events on the

contractor’s intentions for the future conduct of the work in the
light of progress actually achieved at the time of the delay event
and can also be used to assist in resolving more complex delay
scenarios involving concurrent delays, acceleration, and disruption.
It is also the best technique for determining the amount of EOT
that a contractor should have been granted at the time an
employer risk event occurred. In this situation, the amount of the
EOT may not precisely reflect the actual delay suffered by the
contractor. That does not mean that the time impact analysis
generates hypothetical results – it generates results showing
entitlement. This technique is the preferred technique to resolve
complex disputes related to delay and compensation for that
delay [emphasis added].

The SCL’s DDP states that the Time Impact Analysis is the “best technique” to determine the
time extension that the contractor should have been entitled to recover and it the “preferred
technique” to resolve complex disputes related to delay. The Time Impact Analysis method
that the SCL is recommending in the DDP to be used in a retrospective situation is actually a
Prospective Time Impact Analysis that most delay experts and construction professional agree
is the preferred technique to identify and measure owner-caused delay events during the
project or before the effected work is performed, because it provides the best estimate of the
project delay before the work is performed.

When performing a forensic schedule analysis, the delay expert will, in fact, have
documentation that records when and how the project was constructed. Thus, the delay
expert should be able to accurately identify and measure when and how the project was
actually delayed. To further the concept that a forensic analysis should, in fact, determine
project delay based on the actual project delay, an article titled, View from Across the Pond: An
American Perspective on the Society of Construction Law’s Delay and Disruption Protocol, that
was published in The Construction Lawyer in the Winter of 2007, states [3]:

…the Protocol’s Retrospective TIA Method does not take into

account what actually happened on the project after the initiation
of the delay event. As discussed below, the Protocol’s guidance
that entitlement to a time extension should be determined, even
when performing a retrospective delay analysis, by looking
prospectively from when the event causing the delay “occurred”
is likely the most interesting and controversial principle in the
Protocol.

CDR-1188.4
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

…American courts require that a contractor seeking to recover a

delay claim prove with “reasonable certainty” that it was delayed,
which in almost all circumstances require the contractor to prove
that the alleged delay actually delayed the completion of the
project. Thus, in situations where the project has been
completed–and the adjudicator and the parties have the benefit
of the facts regarding what actually happened on a project after
the occurrence of a delaying event (i.e., whether it actually
delayed the project)–it may be impossible for a court or arbitrator
to place itself in the position of the delaying event and ignore
what actually happened on the project. Doing so may result in
awarding the contractor with a time extension or additional
compensation when the alleged delaying event did not actually
cause a delay to the critical path, that is, delay the completion of
the Project.

Although the statement that the alleged delay must have actually delayed the project is
presented from the perspective of the American court system, this concept is actually grounded
in logic and the project facts available to the delay expert after the project is completed. While
it is always preferred to place the adjudicator in the shoes of the project participants when the
delay event occurred, ignoring whether or not the delay event was ultimately responsible for
delaying the project for the exact amount is problematic and troublesome. Especially on large
and complex projects where delay damages are substantial and small variations in the delay
day totals can have drastic effects on the amount of delay damages that the contractor is
entitled to recover. Said another way, assume you are the owner evaluating project delays
after the project is completed and the contractor uses the Time Impact Analysis, as described in
the SCL DDP, and determines that it is entitled to a time extension of 100 calendar days.
However, when the contractor’s schedule analysis is compared to the actual project events, the
100-calendar-day delay is really only an 80-calendar-day delay, should you (the owner) really
compensate the contractor for the entire 100-calendar-day delay? Should the project
participants rely on this potential lack of accuracy regardless of whether small or substantial
amounts of delay damages are at risk? My response is, “NO!” The reason for this response is
that the SCL’s DPP is actually missing a forensic schedule delay method that will identify
whether or not an alleged delay actually delayed the project. So, which forensic schedule
analysis is missing from the SCL?

Which Forensic Schedule Analysis Methods Are In AACE RP-FSA?

In order to identify which forensic schedule analysis is missing from the SCL, we must identify
the forensic schedule analysis methods identified in each of the publications. Starting with the
RP-FSA, the RP-FSA lists nine Method Implementation Protocols (MIPs 3.1 through 3.9). Figure
1, depicts both the Nomenclature Correspondence and Taxonomy of Forensic Schedule Analysis
graphics from the RP-FSA [1].

CDR-1188.5
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 1 Part 1—RP-FSA Graphic Representation of Retrospective MIPs 3.1 through 3.9,
Nomenclature Correspondence

Figure 1 Part 2—Taxonomy of Forensic Schedule Analysis (see Enlarged Size Figure in
Appendix B)

Figure No. 1 is an excerpt from the FP-FSA that shows the hierarchical classification systems
used to classify the known methods of forensic schedule delay analyses. Note that the
diagrams in figure No. 1 show that the nine MIPs identified in the RP-FSA have been described
and categorized according to their attributes. This feature of the RP-FSA is necessary to avoid
confusing one analysis with another because of the wide array of names that the numerous
delay experts use to describe their forensic schedule analysis methods. For example, a large
number of delay experts call the forensic schedule delay analysis that they perform a
“windows” analysis, yet many of them perform their analyses differently and, thus, the name
“windows” does not assist in identifying differentiating features of one analysis so as to make it
distinguishable from another. Whereas, the RP-FSA has chosen to describe the nine MIPs by
attributes and characteristics of each analytical technique.

CDR-1188.6
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Table 1 – List of MIPs in RP-FSA

No. MIP Titles
3.1 Observational/Static/Gross
3.2 Observational/Static/Periodic
3.3 Observational/Dynamic/Contemporaneous As-Is
3.4 Observational/Dynamic/Contemporaneous Split
3.5 Observational/Dynamic/Modified or Recreated
3.6 Modeled/Additive/Single Base
3.7 Modeled/Additive/Multiple Base
3.8 Modeled/Subtractive/Single Simulation
3.9 Modeled/Subtractive/Multiple Base

Table 1—A listing of the MIPs Identified and Defined in the FP-FSA [1]

For a detailed description of these nine forensic schedule delay analysis methods, please refer
to the RP-FSA. However, for the purposes of this paper and for ease of comparison to the SCL’s
DPP, these nine forensic schedule delay analysis methods can be summarized into the five
categories identified in table 2. Each category is identified by its common name, not the
taxonomy used in the RP-FSA.

No. MIP Titles 5 Basic Methods

3.1 Observational/Static/Gross
As-Planned vs. As-Built
3.2 Observational/Static/Periodic
Observational/Dynamic/Contemporaneous As-
3.3
Is
Contemporaneous Analysis
3.4 Observational/Dynamic/Contemporaneous Split
3.5 Observational/Dynamic/Modified or Recreated
3.6 Modeled/Additive/Single Base Impacted As-Planned
3.7 Modeled/Additive/Multiple Base Retrospective Time Impact Analysis
3.8 Modeled/Subtractive/Single Simulation
Collapsed As-Built
3.9 Modeled/Subtractive/Multiple Base
Table 2—Conversion of Nine MIPs to Five Basic Methods

As noted above, in the RP-FSA, AACE chose not to endorse or recommend one forensic
schedule analysis method over another, but chose to identify “caveats” and “considerations”
for the usage of each method. Note that each of these methods will be described in this paper,
along with their strengths and weaknesses.

CDR-1188.7
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Which Forensic Schedule Analysis Methods Are In The SCL’s DDP?

The SCL’s DDP identifies and discusses the following four forensic schedule analysis methods in
its Guidance Section 4.

List 2 – Forensic Schedule Analysis Methods in SCL’s DDP.

• As-Planned vs. As-Built Method
• Impacted As-Planned Method
• Collapsed As-Built Method
• Time Impact Analysis Method

What’s the Missing Forensic Schedule Analysis Method?

Table 3 is a comparison of the forensic schedule analysis methods identified and described in
both the RP-FSA and the DDP.

Table 3 – Comparison of Forensic Schedule Analysis Methods in the

RP-FSA and the DDP
Forensic Delay Analysis RP-FSA DDP
As-Planned vs. As-Built Method
Impacted As-Planned Method
Collapsed As-Built Method
Time Impact Analysis Method
Contemporaneous Analysis Method Missing
Table 3—Comparison of Forensic Schedule Analysis Methods in the RP-FSA and the DDP

It’s unclear why the DDP does not include the Contemporaneous Analysis Method in its
discussion of forensic schedule delay analysis methods. Especially when the Contemporaneous
Analysis Method, which goes by the names of “Contemporaneous Period Analysis,” “Windows,”
“Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis,” or “Chronological and Cumulative” method, is often
considered as one of the most accurate method of performing a retrospective delay analysis
[3].

Now that the five basic forensic schedule delay analysis methods have been identified, the next
step is to discuss how they are performed and to identify their strengths and weaknesses.

Forensic Schedule Analysis Methods: Discussion, Strengths, and Weaknesses

This section will reintroduce the five basic forensic schedule delay analysis methods listed
above, and will include a discussion of how each method is performed and their strengths and
weaknesses. The methods will be discussed in the following order: As-Planned vs. As-Built,
Impacted As-Planned, Collapsed As-Built, Retrospective Time Impact Analysis, and
Contemporaneous Analysis.

CDR-1188.8
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

As-Planned vs. As-Built Method

The As-Planned vs. As-Built Method is described in both the RP-FSA (MIP 3.1 & MIP 3.2) and the
DDP. The RP-FSA states that, “In its simplest application, the method does not involve any
explicit use of CPM logic and can simply be an observational study of start and finish dates of
various activities. It can be performed using a simple graphic comparison of the as-planned
schedule to the as-built schedule.” [1]

Figure 2 is a graphical example of a delay analysis using the As-Planned vs. As-Built Method that
is in the RP-FSA.

Figure 2 – Example of an As-Planned vs. As-Built Method

The goal of every delay analysis is to assign the project delay to the responsible activity(s). In
Figure 2, the delay expert would attempt to correlate activity delay, which consists of the
comparison of the activities’ planned start and finish dates to their actual start and finish dates,
to the overall project delay.

When deciding whether or not to use the Impacted As-Planned Method, the following
strengths and weaknesses in Table 4 should be considered:

CDR-1188.9
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Table 4 – As-Planned vs. As-Built Method:

Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
• Easy to understand and simple to present
• Can be performed with only rudimentary schedules and as-built data
Weaknesses:
• Not useful for projects that were built significantly differently than
planned
• Does not necessarily consider the critical path
• Static analysis, which means it does not consider the possibility of
critical path shifts
• May improperly consider non-critical delays as critical project delays
• Typically does not consider concurrency and pacing issues
• Does not consider changes that were not included in the as-planned
schedule
Table 4—As-Planned Vs. As-Built Method: Strengths and Weaknesses

Impacted As-Planned Method

The Impacted As-Planned Method is described in both the RP-FSA (MIP 3.6) and the DDP. This
method’s well-known name actually describes how the method is performed. At the most basic
level, this method begins with the as-planned schedule, which is usually the project’s approved
baseline schedule that forecasts when the project was originally planned to finish. The next
step is to insert an activity or activities (fragnet: fragmentary network) that represents the
alleged owner delay(s) into the “un-impacted schedule.” Lastly, the “impacted schedule” is re-
calculated, containing the alleged owner delay(s), and the new forecasted completion date is
compared to the original completion date to calculate the amount of project delay that results
from the alleged owner delay.

Figure 3 is a graphical example of a delay analysis using the Impacted As-Planned Method.

CDR-1188.10
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 3 – Example of an Impacted As-Planned Method

In this example, the project consists of an excavation operation that has been divided into four
areas (A through D), each requiring one week to complete. The as-planned schedule shows
that the project’s original duration is four weeks, which is represented as the first graphic in
Figure 2. During the first week of the project, the contractor encountered rock in Area A that
was unanticipated and promptly notified the owner of a differing site condition. Upon receiving
the notification, the owner spent one week evaluating the situation and, then, directed the
contractor to remove the additional rock, which also took one week to complete.

In order to demonstrate the amount of additional contract time that it was entitled to recover
due to this additional rock excavation, the contractor performed a forensic schedule delay
analysis using the Impacted As-Planned Method.

The second graphic in Figure 3, shows that when this two-week delay, which consists of the
Stop Work Order and Added Rock Excavation, is inserted halfway through the completion of the
Area A Excavation in the as-planned schedule, the result is that the forecasted finish date of the
project is delayed two weeks.

CDR-1188.11
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Is it really this simple? No, the simplicity of the Impacted As-Planned Method, in most cases, is
also its biggest weakness, because it only represents a model of how the project would have
been built had the project team tried to build it the way they originally intended without
consideration for actual project events, not how the project was actually built, given the
conditions encountered.

The third graphic in Figure 2, depicts how the project was actually completed. In this example,
what actually happened was that the contractor did not wait until the added rock excavation
work was completed to perform the remaining contract work and actually completed the Area
B Excavation at the same time as the Stop Work Order and Added Rock Excavation was
occurring. Therefore, by not considering what actually happened and how the project was
completed, the Impacted As-Planned Method overstates the actual project delay by 1 week.

When deciding whether or not to use the Impacted As-Planned Method, the following
strengths and weaknesses in table 5 should be considered:

Table 5 – Impacted As-Planned Method:

Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
• Relatively quick and easy to perform
• Only requires as-planned schedule or original plan
Weaknesses:
• Subjective, one-sided: typically only considers owner delay(s)
• Typically does not consider contractor delay(s)
• Only considers effect of inserted delay(s)
• Static analysis
• Hypothetical model: results do not consider actual events
• Cannot account for concurrency or pacing
Table 5—Impacted As-Planned Method: Strengths and Weaknesses

Collapsed As-Built Method

The Collapsed As-Built Method is described in both the RP-FSA (MIP 3.8 & MIP 3.9) and the
DDP. Similar to the Impacted As-Planned Method, this method’s name also describes how the
method is performed. At the most basic level, this method begins with the as-built schedule
and is essentially the polar opposite of the Impacted As-Planned Method, which starts with the
as-planned schedule. The next step is to remove an activity or activities that represent the
alleged owner delay(s). Lastly, the as-built schedule, which has the alleged owner delay(s)
removed, is re-calculated to determine when the project would have finished but for the
alleged owner delay(s).

In most cases, when performing a forensic schedule delay analysis using the Collapsed As-Built
method, the delay expert only removes the alleged owner’s delays. As a result, the delay
expert often relies on the “collapsed as-built schedule” to demonstrate the contractor’s delays.

CDR-1188.12
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

However, the credibility of the results of this method is also firmly based on the accuracy and
reliability of the as-built schedule. During the development of the as-built schedule, the delay
expert often has to incorporate a substantial number of changes to ensure the as-built schedule
matches the project’s actual events and also ensure that the resultant schedule or collapsed
schedule is viable. Also, the delay expert usually has to make changes to the as-built schedule
to perform the analysis like, adding activities, increasing or decreasing durations, and changing
network logic. These types of subjective changes can and often do call into question the
reliability of the as-built schedule used in the analysis and, thus, the results of the analysis.

For the purposes of this discussion, we will be referring to the Collapsed As-Built example in
figures 4, 5, and 6, which includes the removal of both the owner’s and contractor’s delay.

Figure 4 – Example of Collapsed As-Built Method

In this example, the physical contract work was summarized into the Perform Work activity in
order to illustrate the difficulties that exist when analyzing project delays using the Collapsed
As-Built Method. So, the as-built schedule consists of three activities: (1) Submit RFI, (2)
Answer RFI, and (3) Perform Work, and the project actually finished at the end of week 6.
Then, in order to perform an analysis of delay using the Collapsed As-Built Method, the delay
expert had to insert two activities, one for Owner Delay and a second for Contractor Delay. The
Owner Delay activity occurred between the Submit RFI and the Answer RFI activities. The
Contractor Delay activity started at the beginning of week 1 and is a predecessor to the Perform
Work activity.

In order to illustrate the subjective decisions that must be made during the performance of the
Collapsed As-Built Method, we will be referring to the two examples in Figures 5 and 6.

CDR-1188.13
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 5 – Collapsed As-Built Method: Example 1

CDR-1188.14
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 6–Collapsed As-Built Method: Example 2

A comparison of the Collapsed As-Built Method Examples 1 and 2 demonstrates that the delay
expert’s decision regarding the order in which the owner’s and contractor’s delays are removed
will result in different allocations of delay to each party. For example, if the owner delay is
removed first, then the owner is responsible for 1 week of delay and the contractor is
responsible for .5 weeks of delay. However, if the contractor delay is removed first, then all of
the 1.5 weeks of delay is assigned to the owner. It is these types of subjective decisions that
call into question the reliability and objectivity of the results of using the Collapsed As-Built
Method.

When deciding whether or not to use the Collapsed As-Built Method the following strengths
and weaknesses depicted in Table 6 should be considered:

CDR-1188.15
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Table 6 – Collapsed As-Built Method:

Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
• Easy to understand
• Do not need contemporaneous schedules
• Relies on historical record
Weaknesses:
• Often relies on CPM schedule developed after the fact
• Development of as-built schedule is very fact and labor intensive
• Subjective, relies on logic created after the fact
• Does not rely on schedule updates used during the project
• Static analysis, because as-built critical path does not necessarily reflect
changes in the critical path represented in the contemporaneous
schedule updates
• Easily manipulated
• Does not identify or quantify acceleration
Table 6—Collapsed As-Built Method: Strengths and Weaknesses

Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method

The Retrospective Time Impact Method is described in both the RP-FSA (MIP 3.7) and the DDP.
This method consists of inserting an activity or activities (fragnet) that represent the alleged
owner delay(s) and the affected work into the contemporaneous schedule that existed just
before the delay occurred to determine whether and to what extent the alleged owner delay(s)
actually delayed the project.

It is important to note that neither the RP-FSA, nor the DDP explicitly explain whether the
fragnet activities that represent the alleged owner delay(s) should be based on: (1) a
reasonable estimate of the durations of the fragnet activities before the fragnet work was
performed or (2) the actual as-built duration of the fragnet activities. This apparent minor
question can affect the results of the analysis.

Figures 7, 8, and 9 are a graphical example of a delay analysis using the Retrospective Time
Impact Analysis Method and this problem.

CDR-1188.16
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 7–Example of a Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method

CDR-1188.17
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 8—Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method: Owner Delay

CDR-1188.18
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 9—Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method: Contractor Delay

Figure 7 shows that the critical path, which consists of Activities A, B, C, & D, forecasts a
completion date of week 15. Figure 8 shows that when the alleged owner delay is added the
resulting project delay is 2 weeks (week 15 to week 17 = 2 weeks), because the alleged owner
delay affects Activity B. Then, Figure 9 shows that that when the new, impacted schedule is
updated from week 2 to week 4, the contractor’s slow progress on Activity “A” is masked by the
“as-built” duration of the alleged owner delay.

This example identifies two potential problems with this analysis technique. The first problem
is rooted in the reason that the Time Impact Analysis Method is arguably the most favored
method used to measure owner delays prospectively, which is its ability to isolate and evaluate
delay resulting from a “single” impact. However, due to the fact that in most applications of
the Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method, the delay expert only inserts fragnets for
alleged owner delays. Even if the delay expert updates or progresses the impacted schedule to
consider the contractor’s delays, the owner’s and contractor’s delays are evaluated differently.
In this case, the alleged owner delay is given priority over the contractor delay and, as a
consequence, the results of the analysis can and often do favor the contractor, which should
lead one to question the objectively and reliability of the results.

CDR-1188.19
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

A second problem arises when the duration of the alleged owner delay is an as-built duration.
It is important to note that when the alleged owner delay is inserted into the schedule, as
depicted in Figure 8, the as-built or “actual” duration of the alleged owner delay is being
compared to the estimated duration of Activity “A,” because both activities are predecessors to
Activity “C.” To illustrate this problem, let’s assume that the duration of the alleged owner
delay was actually an “estimated” duration of 4 weeks, as opposed to the as-built duration of 6
weeks. Therefore, when this four-week alleged owner delay activity was added to the schedule
the result was no project delay, but now both Activity “A” and the alleged owner delay activity
are concurrently critical. So, when the schedule update is progressed from week 6 to week 7,
the slow progress of both Activity “A” and the alleged owner delay activity would both be
responsible for delaying the project in week 6 and would result in a different allocation of delay
than when the as-built duration of the alleged owner delay activity is used. Therefore,
whenever performing a Time Impact Analysis, either prospectively or retrospectively, the delay
expert should clearly describe whether it is using “estimated” or “as-built” durations for the
alleged owner delay activities and provide an explanation for their use.

When deciding whether or not to use the Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method, the
following strengths and weaknesses depicted in Table 7 should be considered:

Table 7 – Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method:

Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
• Dynamic analysis
• Relies on the contemporaneous schedule
• Considers changes to the critical path
Weaknesses:
• Requires reliable periodic schedule updates
• Typically does not consider concurrency and pacing issues
• Subjective, when only the delays of one party are considered, because
the method cannot account for delays that are not inserted
• Susceptible to manipulation when actual or as-built durations are
compared to estimated durations
• Extremely sensitive to the order of fragnet and logic insertion
• Results rely on schedules that did not exist during the project
Table 7—Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Method: Strengths and Weaknesses

Contemporaneous Analysis Method

The Contemporaneous Analysis Method is described in the RP-FSA (MIP 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5), but is
not described in the DDP. This method identifies and measures project delays by tracking the
progress of the critical path activities on a daily basis in a chronological fashion from the
beginning to the completion of the project. By tracking progress along the critical path on a
daily basis, the method identifies shifts in the critical path, measures the ability of the parties to

CDR-1188.20
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

perform to the plan depicted in the project schedule, and assigns project delay or savings to the
responsible critical activities.

Figures 10 through 15 graphically represent a delay analysis using the Contemporaneous

Schedule Analysis Method.

Figure 10—Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Comparison of As-Planned and As-

Built Schedules

Figure 10 is a comparison of the as-planned and as-built schedules and shows that the project
finished 30 days later than planned (Day 35 to Day 65 = 30 Days). The as-planned schedule
forecasts an original completion date of Day 35.

Because this analysis starts from the beginning of the project and tracks the progress along the
critical path on a day-by-day basis, the analysis begins by tracking the progress of Activity “A,”
as depicted in Figure 11.

CDR-1188.21
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 11–Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity “A” Progress

Activity “A” should have started on Day 1 and finished on Day 10. However, when the progress
of Activity “A” is evaluated, the result is that Activity “A” finished 10 days later than planned on
Day 20, which in turn delayed the remaining work and, thus, the completion date by 10 days
(Day 35 to Day 45 = 10 Days). Then, Activity “B” is expected to begin when Activity “A” finishes.

CDR-1188.22
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 12–Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity “B” Progress

Based on the late finish of Activity “A,” Activity “B” should begin on Day 21 and finish on Day
30. However, when the progress of Activity “B” is evaluated, the result is that Activity “B”
actually started 5 days late on Day 6, but it was completed within its planned duration and
finished on Day 35. As a result, the late start of Activity “B” delayed the remaining work
activities and, thus, the completion date by 5 days (Day 45 to Day 50 = 5 Day). Then, Activity
“C” is expected to start when Activity “B” finishes.

CDR-1188.23
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 13–Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity ‘C’ Progress

Based on the completion of Activity “B,” Activity “C” should begin on Day 36 and finish on Day
35. However, when the progress of Activity “C” is evaluated, the result is that Activity “C” was
completed intermittently and actually finished 10 days late on Day 55. As a result, the
extended duration of Activity “C” delayed the remaining work activities and, thus, the
completion date by 10 days (Day 50 to Day 55 = 5 Day). On Day 55, the owner added 10 days of
work to the end of the project, which is represented by Activity “E.”

CDR-1188.24
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 14–Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity “E”, Added Work

The addition of Activity “E” resulted in a delay of 10 days to the project. Then, Activity “D” was
expected to start after Activity “C” finishes.

CDR-1188.25
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 15–Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity “D” Progress

Based on the completion of Activity “C,” Activity “D” should begin on Day 56 and finish on Day
60. Unlike the other work activities, Activity “D” starts and finishes as expected, which results
in no project delay. Then, Activity “E” was expected to start when Activity “D” finishes.

CDR-1188.26
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 16–Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Activity “E” Progress

Activity “E” was expected to start on day 61 and finish on Day 70. However, when the progress
of Activity “E” was evaluated, the result is that Activity “E” actually finished early on Day 65.
The early finish of Activity “E” resulted in a savings of 5 days to the project’s completion.

The planned and actual performance of all of the work activities are compiled in Figure 17.

CDR-1188.27
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Figure 17–Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method: Summary of Delays

Figure 17 shows that by tracking the progress along the critical path chronologically through the
project, the Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method attributed project delay to the
Activities A, B, C, and E, and project savings to Activity E. Unlike the As-Planned vs. As-Built
Method, the Contemporaneous Schedule Analysis Method uses all of the available project
schedules (as-planned and updates) and identifies the cause and effect relationship between
activity delay and project delay. Additionally, unlike the Impacted As-Planned, Collapsed As-
Built, and Retrospective Time Impact Analysis Methods, the Contemporaneous Schedule
Analysis Methods provides more objective results, because it does not rely on the delay expert
to add or remove activities to the project schedule to demonstrate project delay.

When deciding whether or not to use the Contemporaneous Analysis Method, the following
strengths and weaknesses depicted in table 8 should be considered:

CDR-1188.28
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Table 8 – Contemporaneous Analysis Method:

Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
• Relies on the contemporaneous schedule (as-planned schedule and
updates) -- the schedules that were used to plan and manage the
project
• Dynamic analysis
• Considers changes to the critical path
• Relies on planned and actual performance to identify and measure
project delays
• Subjectively reduced, if not eliminated
• Accurately identifies and quantifies concurrency
• Accurately identifies and quantifies acceleration
Weaknesses:
• Requires reliable as-planned schedule and periodic schedule updates
Table 8—Contemporaneous Analysis Method: Strengths and Weaknesses

Conclusion
When comparing AACE RP-FSA and the SCL’s DDP, two major differences are apparent. The
first difference is that unlike the RP-FSA, the DDP recommends the use of the Time Impact
Analysis in both the prospective and retrospective applications. The RP-FSA does not
recommend the use of one over another. The second difference is that the Contemporaneous
Analysis Method is actually not identified or discussed in the DDP and with the near ubiquitous
use of CPM scheduling on almost every construction project, the Contemporaneous Analysis
Method is often the most accurate method to forensically identify and measure project delays.

CDR-1188.29
 2012 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TCM CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS

Bibliography

No. Description

1 Hoshino, Kenji; Livengood, John; Carson, Chris

2007
AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03
Forensic Schedule Analysis (April 25, 2011 Revision)
Page(s) 135
AACE

2 The Society of Construction Law

October 2002
The Society of Construction Law
Delay and Disruption Protocol
Page(s) 85
The Society of Construction Law

3 Lowe, Richard H.; Barba, Evans M.; Lare, Gregory B.

Winter 2007
View from Across the Pond: An American Perspective on the Society of
Construction Law’s Delay and Disruption Protocol
Page(s) 12
The Construction Lawyer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mark F. Nagata, PSP

Trauner Consulting Services, Inc.
mark.nagata@traunerconsulting.com

CDR-1188.30