methods of delay analysis
TRANSCRIPT
Methods of Delay Analysis Requirements and Developments
Katrin EndersHill International, London UKFrankfurt, 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
“‘Beware the dark arts’ was the sage advice of AlbusDumbledore 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!’”
OVERVIEW – DEFINITION
3(cited: BEWARE THE DARK ARTS! DELAY ANALYSIS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH RELIANCE ON TECHNOLOGY, David Barry, 2009 )
• 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)
OVERVIEW – DEFINITION
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
6
TWOTypes
FOURCategories*
TWOTypes
FOURCategories*
* 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”
• As‐planned versus As‐built
• As‐Built But For
LOOKING BACKLOOKING BACK
Retrospective Analyses
LOOKING FORWARDLOOKING FORWARD
Prospective Analyses
• Time‐Impact Analysis
• Impacted As‐planned
• 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)
7
Strengths Weakness• 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)
• 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
APPROACH – AS‐PLANNED VS AS‐BUILT (APAB)
Claim
Planned CP
TimescaleActivities
As‐built CP
Compare As‐Planned vs As‐Built
(delays)
Contractual Completion
Date
Actual Completion Date
(delays and disruptions)
APPROACH – AS‐PLANNED VS AS‐BUILT (APAB)
APPROACH – IMPACTED AS‐PLANNED (IAP)
9
• is a prospectivemethodology • 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 Weakness• 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)
• 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
Event
Event
TimescaleActivities
Event
Claim
EventEvent
Event
10
APPROACH – IMPACTED AS‐PLANNED (IAP)
APPROACH – TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)
11
• 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 Weakness• 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
• 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
Activity 1Activity 2
Activity 3
Project Completion
Date of Event
TimescaleActivities
Progress behind on this activity.
Delay to Project Completion
Delay to Project Completion (2)
Delay Event
• Delay (1) caused by poor progress• Delay (2) caused by event• Claim = difference between D (1) and D (2)
12
APPROACH – TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)
APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)
13
• 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
is that it is fact based (based on as‐build)
• not reliant upon an as‐planned programme
• complicated method hence, difficult to execute and to explain
• difficult to establish a dynamic as‐built schedule (as complicated to determine and model logic)
• requires detailed as‐build/ progressrecords
• Identify Planned Period & As‐built
Planned period
Planned Completion
As‐built
Actual Completion
14
APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)
• Identify Delays
Plannedperiod
As‐built
Planned Completion
Actual Completion
15
APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)
• ‘Zero’ delays
Actual CompletionPlanned
period
Planned Completion
Actual Completion ‘but for’ delays
As‐built
16
APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)
• Quantify Claim
Contractperiod
As‐built
Contract Completion
Culpable or non‐claimable delays
Claim period
Actual Completion ‘but for’ delays
Actual Completion
Extended Completion
17
APPROACH – AS‐BUILT BUT FOR (ABBF)
AACEI RP 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis
Table 1 – Nomenclature Correspondence
ADVANTGES & DISADVANTAGESNOT PREFERENCE … OR PREJUDICE!
APPROACH – NOMENCLATURE
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
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?
FINDINGS – CHOOSING A METHODOLOGY
20
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 negativeimpact 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?
FINDINGS – FACT IS KING
21
Recommend Guidance:
AACEI Recommended Practice (http://www.aacei.org/resources/ppg/)
SCL Protocol (http://www.scl.org.uk/resources)
FINDINGS – GUIDANCE
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
24
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
QUESTIONS
Katrin EndersAssociate DirectorHill International (UK) Ltd11 Pilgrim Street,London EC4V 6RNOffice: +44 (0)207 618 1200/ 1262Mobile: +44 (0)7850722796www.hillintl.com
25
QUESTIONS PLEASE ?
4900 Employees worldwide
100 Offices in 40 countries
Construction Claims & Consulting Group
Project Management Group
NYSE Global Market
Founded in 1976
Employers/ContractorsHill International (D) GmbHPrinzregentenstraße 20‐2280538 Mü[email protected]
Düsseldorf, GermanyGraf‐ Adolf‐ Platz 1540213 Dü[email protected]
Hamburg, GermanyAm Kaiserkai 120457 Hamburg
Hill International UKLondon, Hill International UK, Ltd.11 Pilgrim StLondon, EC4V 6RNUKTel: +44 (0)20 7618 1200
(9 UK Locations)
SERVICES
SERVICES
• Compliance• Tools and Templates
• Guidelines• Procedures & Work Flows
• Structures
• In House Seminars• Open Seminars• Industry Events• Coaching / Mentoring• Workshops
• Delay & Disruption Analysis
• Expert Advisory Services• Expert Witness Services
• Claims Preparation• Claims Analysis
• Contract Analysis / Drafting
• Time Risk Management• Procurement Strategy• Contract Advisory• Staff Augmentation• Contract Workshops• Project Audits
Dispute Avoidance
Dispute Resolution
Claims Consulting
Seminars / Coaching / Mentoring