Methods of Delay Analysis

Requirements and Developments

Katrin Enders
Hill International, London UK
Frankfurt, 29 September 2015
OVERVIEW

Overview – Definition Forensic Schedule Analysis

Approach – Delay Analysis Methodologies pro & cons

Findings – Choosing a methodology, Fact is King, Guidance

Conclusions

2
OVERVIEW – DEFINITION

“‘Beware the dark arts’ was the sage advice of Albus

Dumbledore to the young Harry Potter. Besides budding wizards,
construction clients (at the project or dispute resolution stages),
contractors and lawyers would be equally well served by this
advice when it comes to the difficult subject of delay
analysis"...“delay analysis like Lord Voldamort, comes in many
guises and it seems there is a spell for every circumstance. ‘What
would you like conjured … err … proven, sir? Let me just mix up
some ‘fragnets’, ‘lags’, eye of newt and … hey presto!’”

(cited: BEWARE THE DARK ARTS! DELAY ANALYSIS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH RELIANCE ON TECHNOLOGY, David Barry, 2009 )
3
 OVERVIEW – DEFINITION

• FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS

• “… refers to the study and investigation of events using CPM or other
recognized schedule calculation methods for potential use in a legal
proceeding.”

• “… 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.”
(cited: AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 29R‐03 FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS TCM Framework)

4
APPROACH

Overview – Definition Forensic Schedule Analysis and Nomenclature

Approach – Delay Analysis Methodologies pro & cons

Findings – Choosing a methodology, Fact is King, Guidance

Conclusions

5
APPROACH – DELAY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES

Retrospective Analyses Prospective Analyses

LOOKING BACK LOOKING FORWARD

• As‐planned versus As‐built • Time‐Impact Analysis

• As‐Built But For • Impacted As‐planned

TWO
Types

FOUR
Categories*

* See for example the Society of Construction Law “Protocol on Delay and Disruption”, or Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering Recommended Practice No.29R-03
“Forensic Schedule Analysis” 6
APPROACH – AS‐PLANNED VS AS‐BUILT (APAB)

• is the most basic method of analysis

• is observational – no changes are made to the programme
• straightforward comparison between the planned vs the actual
performance of the work
• can only be carried out retrospectively (requires as‐built programme/or at
least the overall as‐built completion date)

Strengths
• is very simple and therefore
easy to understand
• can be performed with
rudimentary base data (e.g.
when detail and logic of the as‐
planned programme is unavailable,
and no detailed progress records
other than the overall as‐built
programme are available)
Weakness
• Static critical path
• fails to fulfil the fundamental
requirement to demonstrate the
causal link between a delay event and
its alleged effect
• does not deal adequately with
concurrent delay
7
 APPROACH – AS‐PLANNED VS AS‐BUILT (APAB)

Compare As‐Planned vs As‐Built

Activities Timescale
Planned CP Contractual Actual
Completion Completion
As‐built CP Date
Date

(delays)

Claim
(delays and disruptions)
APPROACH – IMPACTED AS‐PLANNED (IAP)

• is a prospective methodology
• delay effect is measured by imposing events on a model of the original
programme (Baseline)
• does not rely on any actual progress that has been made
• requires a robust and reliable original programme that reflects the
indented sequence and the Scope of Work

Strengths
• relatively simple to carry out and
to understand
• No as‐built required (likely choice
when planned programme is available,
no significant changes in the sequence
during the project execution, few
delaying events, and when there is
little or no progress records)
Weakness
• cannot be used for complex projects
• used to quantify potential delays rather
and actual
• concurrent delays easily overlooked
• assumes that the baseline was
achievable
• does not take actual progress/ resources
into account
• not reliable in dispute resolution
9
 APPROACH – IMPACTED AS‐PLANNED (IAP)

Activities Timescale

Event
Claim
Event

Event

Event
Event

Event

10
APPROACH – TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)
• prospective and dynamic method – but can be applied retrospectively
• takes account of progress and timing of delay events on the Works
• requires reliable as‐built data to update the programme (hence, if detailed and
regular progress data is not available then this method cannot be used)
• a reliable baseline programme is essential (ideally reflects the execution of the
planned project using sound construction logic)
• often undertaken in time slices (windows)

Strengths
• has a proven track‐record in
forensic application
• preferred method of the SCL
Protocol
• based on a dynamic and changing
critical path
• demonstrates cause and effect
Weakness
• time consuming (to determine the factual
background and correct logic associated
with progress records and delay events)
• requires considerable degree of
expertise and technical knowledge
• hence, difficult to communicate, highly
complex
11
APPROACH – TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)

Activities Timescale
Date of Project
Event Completion
Activity 1 Delay to Project
Activity 2 Completion
Activity 3
Delay Event

Progress behind
on this activity. Delay to Project
Completion (2)
• Delay (1) caused by poor progress
• Delay (2) caused by event
• Claim = difference between D (1) and D (2)
12
APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)
• retrospective method also known as Collapsed As‐built (CAB)
• relies on a detailed reconstruction of the as‐built programme
• normally restricted to after‐the‐event analyses in forensic work
• does have a limited prospective capability (can be used to demonstrate the effect
of a delay on the completed part of an incomplete project)
• has been proven to be reliable in dispute resolution/ claims
• If done properly can demonstrates effect and cause/ takes account of
concurrence
Strengths Weakness
• greatest strength for forensic work • complicated method hence, difficult to
is that it is fact based (based on as‐ execute and to explain
build) • difficult to establish a dynamic as‐built
• not reliant upon an as‐planned schedule (as complicated to determine and
programme model logic)
• requires detailed as‐build/ progress
records
13
APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)

• Identify Planned Period & As‐built

Planned Actual
Planned Completion Completion
period

As‐built

14
APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)

• Identify Delays

Planned Actual
Planned Completion Completion
period

As‐built

15
APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)

• ‘Zero’ delays

Planned Actual
Planned Completion Completion
period

As‐built

Actual Completion ‘but for’

delays
16
APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)

• Quantify Claim
Extended
Completion
Contract
Contract Completion
period Actual
Completion
As‐built

Culpable or non‐ Claim

claimable delays period

Actual Completion
‘but for’ delays
17
APPROACH – NOMENCLATURE
AACEI RP 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis
Table 1 – Nomenclature Correspondence

ADVANTGES & DISADVANTAGES

NOT PREFERENCE … OR PREJUDICE!

18
FINDINGS

Overview – Definition Forensic Schedule Analysis and Nomenclature

Approach – Delay Analysis Methodologies pro & cons

Findings – Choosing a methodology, Fact is King, Guidance

Conclusions

19
FINDINGS – CHOOSING A METHODOLOGY

Which Method is appropriate, correct, sustainable?

• Legal/Contractual
• What does the jurisdiction/ contract require? (e.g. Concurrency? Likely or Actual delay
to completion? Delay Analysis Method Specified?)

• What information is available?

• Planned, progress, as‐built (Does a lack of information preclude the use of any of the
methods?)

• Time and Money

• Do time/cost constraints eliminate certain options? ((During project/After Project,
Record keeping; Staff available (Engineering/Management),Decision making, Budget)

• Other issues:
• Proportionality, Type of project, Which party, at what stage is the dispute?
20
 FINDINGS – FACT IS KING

 Key Facts:
 At least after an event delay becomes a fact and the Other Party/ the Courts are
interested in what actually happened rather than in what could have happened.

 For an event to affect the completion date it must fall on the critical path of the
project.

 must consider all relevant facts and evidence regardless of a positive or negative
impact in relation to the issues in question

 Delay Analysis should be based on a calculated approach it can not be impressionistic

 Effect and Cause not Cause and Effect

 Are there facts/ evidence available and accessible to verify the cause?

21
FINDINGS – GUIDANCE

Recommend Guidance:
 AACEI Recommended Practice (http://www.aacei.org/resources/ppg/)

 SCL Protocol (http://www.scl.org.uk/resources)

22
CONCLUSIONS

Overview – Definition Forensic Schedule Analysis and Nomenclature

Approach – Delay Analysis Methodologies pro & cons

Findings – Choosing a methodology, Fact is King, Guidance

Conclusions

23
CONCLUSIONS

 Conclusions:
 Delay Analysis comes in many guises all with their
advantages and disadvantages
 To chose the most suitable method depends on the
surrounding factors
 Facts and common sense are KING

24
 QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS PLEASE ?

Katrin Enders
Associate Director
Hill International (UK) Ltd
11 Pilgrim Street,
London EC4V 6RN
Office: +44 (0)207 618 1200/ 1262
Mobile: +44 (0)7850722796
www.hillintl.com
25
 SERVICES

 4900 Employees worldwide

 100 Offices in 40 countries

 Construction Claims & Consulting Group

 Project Management Group

 NYSE Global Market

 Founded in 1976

 Employers/Contractors
Hill International (D) GmbH
Prinzregentenstraße 20‐22
80538 München
Hill International UK Munich@hillintl.com
London, Hill International UK, Ltd.
Düsseldorf, Germany
11 Pilgrim St
Graf‐ Adolf‐ Platz 15
London,
40213 Düsseldorf
EC4V 6RN
Duesseldorf@hillintl.com
UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7618 1200 Hamburg, Germany
Am Kaiserkai 1
(9 UK Locations)
20457 Hamburg
SERVICES

• Contract Analysis / • Delay & Disruption

Drafting Analysis
• Time Risk Management • Expert Advisory Services
• Procurement Strategy • Expert Witness Services
• Contract Advisory • Claims Preparation
• Staff Augmentation Dispute Dispute • Claims Analysis
• Contract Workshops Avoidance Resolution
• Project Audits

Seminars /
Claims
Coaching /
Consulting
• In House Seminars Mentoring • Compliance
• Open Seminars • Tools and Templates
• Industry Events • Guidelines
• Coaching / Mentoring • Procedures & Work Flows
• Workshops • Structures