| Date | 29 March 2006 |
|
|
| Judgment | The as-planned v as-built method of delay analysis |
|
|
| The Issue | The as-planned vs as-built method of delay analysis is a simple approach to modelling delay, but is it really an effective method of delay analysis? |
|
|
| Implication |
If this method is modified to reflect and present the actual delays determined from a proper investigation of the facts then this approach has its place. However, the use of this method of analysis in its simplest form is easily criticised and is unlikely to be reliable in dispute resolution. |
printThe writer’s first article on delay analysis emphasised the importance of establishing that an event falls on the critical path of a project in order to give rise to an entitlement to extension of time. This article considers one of a number of techniques used by delay analysts to set out and present a case for delay. It is not intended through these articles to express any particular views as to which method is the best, since the approach very much depends on the facts, the nature of the events being analysed, the nature and extent of the available as-built evidence, and the available programme and progress data. Complex projects can be very difficult to analyse, but above all, the case of Skanska v Egger (2004) illustrated the importance of focussing on the facts and keeping the analyses and the presentation of delays as simple as possible. This second article considers the merits of the as-planned vs as-built approach to modelling delay. The method The as-planned vs as-built method of analysis can be carried out without the need for complex computer project management software, although such software is usually used for its presentation. This method is described by a number of English and American commentators as well as being referred to in SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol. The method merely compares the durations of the planned activities with the as-built durations and attributes the variance between the planned construction period and the as-built construction period as an entitlement to an extension of time. The approach is illustrated in the programme chart below. This method is useful to identify the difference between the planned and actual durations and sequence of events in order to focus the further investigation on areas which appear to have gone particularly wrong and which appear to have been critical. Because this method requires as-built information it can only be used for retrospective delay analysis.  It therefore assumes that the as-built situation arises by reason of variations or other reasons for which the contractor is entitled to an extension of time and not due to its own culpability. Selection criteria This method is well suited for relatively simple projects where it is easy to identify where the main delays arose. Clearly it requires the planned programme and as-built information in sufficient detail to compare as-built activities with the same planned activities. This method is useful to identify the difference between the planned and actual durations and sequence of events in order to focus the further investigation on areas which appear to have gone particularly wrong and which appear to have been critical. Because this method requires as-built information it can only be used for retrospective delay analysis. Issues This is obviously a very simplistic method of analysis. Indeed it is questionable whether this can really be called a method of analysis in the way that it is described by the commentators. It is unlikely that it can credibly be concluded that the difference between the planned and as-built programmes gives rise to an extension of time. To do so, assumes that the planned programme was realistic and achievable, the work was appropriately resourced to enable that plan to be achieved and that the only reason for the delay was because of an event for which the contractor is entitled to an extension of time. What is needed is a careful consideration of the facts from which one should seek to determine an actual period of delay, which either will or will not sufficiently explain the difference between the planned and as-built programmes. For example, if one looks at the programme above, it may be that the planned duration for activity 1 was an under-estimate and there was no event affecting it, that the same applies to activity 2, and activity 3 was an overestimate but was subject to a delay of 4 days, thus explaining 4 of the 7 days of delay to completion. None of this would be apparent from the simple comparison shown in the chart, but would become apparent from an investigation of the facts. Further the planned programme may well not be in sufficient detail to enable a credible conclusion that the difference between the planned and actual activity durations is explainable by the events relied upon. If this method is used without the use of CPM software then it may be difficult to demonstrate the critical path and the extent of the effect on the completion date. Advantages This method of analysis is generally the cheapest and simplest to perform, although assuming a planned programme exists, it still requires the production of an as-built programme. This approach can be useful in relation to events that are clearly on the critical path. Disadvantages It has been observed that the fact that this is not a CPM based method means that it is impossible to demonstrate with any precision the effects of concurrency or parallel delays; unproductive working; the effects of secondary or consequential delay; acceleration; resequencing or mitigation. This is not necessarily so, since many of these issues are a question of fact and how they are presented. If this method is modified to reflect and present the actual delays determined from a proper investigation of the facts then this approach has its place. However, the use of this method of analysis in its simplest form is easily criticised and is unlikely to be reliable in dispute resolution.
CJ-0612
|
|||
|
© Brewer Consulting |
|||
 |
|||