Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

Q&A: Delay Analysis

In partnership with the CIOB, Claims Class is running a series of monthly webinars on construction claims. The webinars are based on our Construction Claims e-courses and workshops and have attracted between 150 and 300 attendees per session.

At the end of each webinar, we invite questions and send the attendees answers to any questions that we do not have time to answer during the webinar. I’ve been sharing the Q&A responses on our blog (see blogs on Q&A: Contract Administration and Q&A: Types of Claim) and we’ve received good feedback from our readers. So, I’ve decided to do the same for this month’s blog. The following are questions and answers from the webinar on Delay Analysis.

Question 1

Question: Who is the owner of the float when the contractor has delayed and when the contractor has accelerated?

Answer: Delays will consume float and acceleration will create it. If regular progress updates are created (as they should be), the programming software will automatically take into account float consumed or created and predict the time for completion at the data-date of the update.

 

Question 2

Question: After the delay analysis on the updated Schedule nearest to the delay event, do we then revise the remaining work to have a Revised Schedule or simply continue the update on the newly impacted Schedule?

Answer: As far as I am aware, there is no hard and fast rule about this. You will be creating a delay analysis to demonstrate your claim for an extension of time, so at this point the extension will not have been awarded. Consequently, one school of thought says that there is no requirement for a revised programme until the extension of time is awarded. On the other hand, if there has been an event which has affected the programme, then you should take it into account in your updates. This will help to demonstrate that the event which is the subject of your claim is actually affecting the programme.

 

Question 3

Question: Should we maintain the logic for TIA or change the logic as per the activities happening at site? What is the best option and why? Thank you.

Answer: The logic of the current programme should be maintained. If, however, things have been “as-built’ to a different logic, this will be captured when you insert the actual start and completion dates of the activities.

 

Question 4

Question: Can a contractor use more than one type of delay analysis methods in a delay claim with multiple delay events?

Answer: It would be illogical to do so. If I were presented with a claim which does this, I would suspect that the contractor is using the most advantageous form of analysis to suit each individual circumstance. I would therefore not recommend it.

 

Question 5

Question: How could we predict the delays if there was a sudden mishap at the site?

Answer: You can’t predict such a delay. What you can do however and what FIDIC and the SCL Protocol advises, is predict the effect of a delay on the time for completion as soon as you can ascertain the start and finish of the delay. You do this by performing a delay analysis.

 

Question 6

Question: We have to 5 delay event from the contractor all of them finished after the project completion and we have other delay event finished also after the completion date from the employer so how to separate the responsibility of the delay and prolongation costs?

Answer: Sorry I don’t understand this. The project cannot be completed until all activities are finished, so how can a delay event finish after the project completion?

 

Question 7

Question: Does a revised programme supersede the baseline programme?

Answer: Yes. It is necessary to produce a revised programme when the current programme, (which could be the baseline or an earlier revision) is no longer appropriate. Reasons for this could be because an extension time has been awarded, the contractor has decided to change the sequencing or timing of his operations, or acceleration measures are necessary to meet the prevailing time for completion.

 

Question 8

Question: Is impacted as planned accepted as a method of delay analysis as some contracts stipulate that it cannot be used?

Answer: If the contract stipulates that it cannot be used, then both parties have agreed that it cannot be used, so it would not be acceptable in such circumstances.

 

Question 9

Question: What is the difference between substantial and sequential concurrency?

Answer: Sorry, I have never heard of substantial concurrency, so I cannot advise you on this. Sequential indicates that one thing follows another. Sequential is therefore entirely different to concurrent, so I don’t see how sequential concurrency can even exist.

 

Question 10

Question: The contractor is not allowed to change the durations of activities (crashing) in any revised programme to allow for proper comparison, right?

Answer: I disagree. If the contractor revises his programme, he is at liberty to alter the sequence and timing. If, for example, the project is falling behind, the contractor is obliged to re-programme to meet the prevailing completion date. He may need to work longer hours or bring in additional resources to achieve this, which would mean that activities could be completed in shorter durations. If this is the case, he would be correct to reflect this in the revised programme.

If, however, the contractor is just manipulating the forecasted activities to make it look as though he will complete on time, this would be both unacceptable and foolish. Foolish because, if the contractor later submits an extension of time claim in which he asserts he was delayed, it would be very easy for the Engineer to reject this based on the fact that for x months, the progress reports have been advising that there were no delays. The message here to contractors, is don’t try to manipulate the truth because, if you are entitled to an extension of time, it will come back to bite you.

 

Question 11

Question: Dear Andy, On the Collapsed As Built Method, Can you please elaborated more on how employer risk can be removed? For instance If the employer takes 30 days to approve a material, how can it be established that the employer is delayed since there is no baseline programme which can be used as a bench mark?

Answer: You would need to find something to show that the 30-day approval period was excessive. Sometimes the review and approval periods are stated somewhere in the contract. If not, you will have difficulty establishing that a delay occurred. This is one of the many reasons why is it essential to have an acceptable baseline programme in place as soon as possible.

 

Question 12

Question: When does a revised programme come to existence? Is it because the contractor wants to correct the baseline programme for some reason or because of Employer events or instructions?

Answer: Either reason would make it sensible to revise the programme.

 

Question 13

Question: I have QS. If we have Baseline and then multiple approved Revised Programmes within the contract time frame, how can we use it in the delay analysis?

Answer: You should base the delay analysis on the latest revised programme.

 

If you found this Q&A blog useful, join us live for the next webinar in the series where we’ll be discussing how to compile and present your claims and responses for success. Register