Selecting the Best Delay Analysis Technique

Ahmed Fouad Sedky Lakeshore, Ontario Chapter +1 - February 7, 2017

Ahmed Sedky is the Director and founder of Integrated Consultancy Inc., a Canadian company specialized in Project Management
and Construction Claims Consulting.

SHARE
Practice Areas: Construction, Legal Project Management, Scheduling

Delay is the ugly truth on most construction projects. Delays could lead to disputes on who is responsible for them.
This has created the need for forensic planning to assess the true cause of delay (and the responsible party for this
delay) based on project facts.

The terms delay analysis and forensic planning are usually used interchangeably. They describe the techniques
used to analyze the actual delay on the project and forecast the impact of the current delay on project completion
dates.

Delay analysis is analyzing why the delay happened or what the expected impact of an event is. 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. (AACE International
Recommended Practice No. 29R03 Forensic Schedule Analysis TCM Framework)

The term delay analysis is sometimes confused with time impact analysis. Forensic planning looks into analyzing the
schedule to identify why a delay occurred to the project and how it affects the projects critical path, while time impact
analysis is a one of the techniques used for delay analysis.

There are several delay analysis/forensic planning techniques that can be used. This article will provide a brief
explanation of eachand when each method is best used.

What is the difference between critical path and longest path? The terms are often used interchangeably when
discussing your projects high-priority sequence of work to deliver on time. Its confusing to many, but there is an
important distinction between your projects critical path and the longest path.

A popular definition of critical path: It is the path of zero total float through the project. This is true in the following
conditions:

1. No project deadline
2. No constraints
3. No actuals

However, if any of the conditions above change, it could be the path(s) with the least total float. The longest path is
the longest path; theres no debating that descriptor. It is the path through a project network from start to finish where
the total duration is longer than any other path. It makes sense to focus on a projects longest path as it is definitely
the path where deviations from the plan will affect the projects finish date.

The longest path is a critical path, but not all critical paths are the longest. The projects longest path is the main path
to monitor. What the client wants to see might be something else, but the timely completion of longest path activities
leads to your project finishing on time.

Overview: Different Techniques for Delay Analysis (Forensic Planning)

Retrospective analyses, which means looking back to analyze what happened already.
 1. Asplanned vs. asbuilt
2. Asbuilt but for
3. Windows analysis

Prospective analyses, which means looking forward to analyze what will happen:

1. Timeimpact analysis
2. Impacted asplanned

Each of these five techniques has it is own characteristics, strengths and weakness:

1. As-Planned vs. As-Built: The most basic method of analysis. It is observationalno changes are made to the
program. It is a straightforward comparison between the planned versus the actual performance of the work. It can
only be carried out retrospectively; requires asbuilt program, or at least the overall asbuilt completion date.

Strengths:

Very simple/easy to understand

Can be performed with rudimentary base data (e.g., when detail and logic of the as-planned program is
unavailable, and no detailed progress records other than the overall asbuilt program are available)

Weaknesses:

Static critical path

Fails to fulfill the fundamental requirement to demonstrate the causal link between a delay event and its
alleged effect
Does not deal adequately with concurrent delay

2. AsBuilt But For (Collapsed As-Built): It is a retrospective method also known as collapsed asbuilt (CAB). It
relies on a detailed reconstruction of the asbuilt program. It is normally restricted to aftertheevent analyses in
forensic work. It has a limited prospective capability (can be used to demonstrate the effect of a delay on the
completed part of an incomplete project). It has been proven to be reliable in dispute resolution/claims. If done
properly, it can demonstrate effect and cause/takes account of concurrence.

Strengths:

Greatest strength for forensic work is that it is fact based (based on as-build)
Not reliant on an asplanned program

Weaknesses:

Complicated method/difficult to execute and explain

Difficult to establish a dynamic asbuilt schedule (as complicated to determine and model logic)
Requires detailed asbuild/progress records

3. Windows Analysis: It is a retrospective method also known as time slice. The windows method breaks the
construction period into discrete time increments and examines the effects of the delays attributable to each of the
project participants as the delays occur. It adopts the as-planned schedule as its baseline, but the as-planned
schedule is periodically updated at the end of each planned time period.

Strengths:

Yields the most reliable results

Make some use by claims consultants
Accurate
Recommended
Overcomes some disadvantages of others
Weaknesses:

Requires significant time and effort since it requires a large amount of information and the schedule needs
to be periodically updated
May not be appropriate for projects that lack strict administrative procedures and updated schedules
Expensive
Contemporaneous basis, but no future changes considered

4. Time Impact Analysis Technique: It is a prospective and dynamic method, but can be applied retrospectively. It
takes account of progress and timing of delay events on the works. It requires reliable asbuilt data to update the
program (hence, if detailed and regular progress data is not available, then this method cannot be used). It is a
reliable baseline program that is essential (ideally reflects the execution of the planned project using sound
construction logic).

Strengths:

Has a proven track record in forensic application

Was the preferred method of the SCL protocol
Based on a dynamic and changing critical path
Demonstrates cause and effect

Weaknesses:

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
Difficult to communicate, highly complex

5. Impacted As-Planned Technique: It is a prospective methodology. Delay effect is measured by imposing events
on a model of the original program (baseline). It does not rely on any actual progress that has been made. It requires
a robust and reliable original program that reflects the indented sequence and the scope of work.

Strengths:

Relatively simple to carry out and to understand

No asbuilt required (likely choice when planned program is available, no significant changes in the
sequence during the project execution, few delaying events, and when there is little or no progress records)

Weaknesses:

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

Which method is appropriate, correct and suitable? To decide which method should be used, several points should be
taken into consideration:

1. The legal and contractual requirements. What does the jurisdiction or contract require? Is the delay
analysis technique specified? Is the contract silent regarding concurrency? Is the float owner specified in
the contract, or the contract is silent on the issue?
2. What is the information available regarding the project? Is the delay an actual fact, or is it a forecasted
delay? Is there an approved baseline schedule? Are there frequent updates, and are they approved? Is the
asbuilt information available? The lack of information can preclude the use of some of the methods.
 3. The time and/or money available to carry out the analysis can also determine which method to use. For
example, if the as-built data is not available and it needs to be recreated, this will require time and cost money,
whichif not availablewould mean that some techniques will be excluded. That is why record keeping
during the project life time is so important. When the project ends, the staff that worked on the project could
either not be available to help recreate the records, orif available and the project was of long durationthe
staff may forget unrecorded details and records.
4. Other issues that can impact selecting a method can include the type of project under analysis, the party
preparing the claim (is it the contractor or the client?) and the stage of the dispute (is the delay analysis
performed at the beginning of the project or during execution or after completion?).

Here is when each delay analysis technique is best used:

Impacted as planned is best used at the beginning of the project.

Time impact analysis is best used during the course of the project, but requires realistic updates (not
political updates) and correct forecast for future work. Political updates are those that dont reflect the real
forecast for the job; they are affected by project politics.
Windows analysis is best used during the course of the project, but all changes to logic and structure
have to be agreed to by the other party (the engineer).
As-built vs. as-planned is best used at the end of the project and when there is not enough time or
money to do a detailed analysis (note that is does not give accurate results in complex projects).
Collapsed as built is be best used at the end of the project, when there is detailed as-built information
and when there is enough time and money to do a detailed analysis. The reconstructed links and actual
critical path is usually debatable between the parties.