REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE DELAY ANALYSIS METHODS

The purpose of any delay presentation should be to demonstrate that the critical path of the project has been affected by events for which the Employer is responsible, or for which an EOT entitlement exists under the Contract, and that as a result, the Time for Completion or Completion date requires extension

The various text books will describe numerous ways of assessing and presenting delays / EOT entitlement, however practically there are two main approaches

• Impacted “as planned” approach
• Impacted “as built” approach

Both methods rely on the baseline programme but differ in their consideration (or not) of actual progress. 

In general summary of the principles involved 

• As planned approach – Involves the retention of the original baseline programme logic and sequence onto which the theoretical effects of the delay events are superimposed to create the impact/effect on the baseline programme and completion date(s)
• As built approach – Involves the update of the baseline programme using actual site progress and the incorporation of the actual effects of the delay events. 

In both cases, the approaches will maintain the baseline logic and sequence for any future period not covered by the delay analysis.  The difference in approach can often result in widely different results and presented entitlements, as follows.  The example involves a foundation Contract, the delay event relates to an increase in quantity of the piling works (in a baseline programme that included some free float (2 weeks) in the planned programme duration)  

The baseline programme was planned as follows 

The piling quantity increased by 50%.

The impacted “as planned” presentation was as follows in claiming an EOT of 1.5 months 

The actual as built chronology associated with the programme included the following

• Mobilization was delayed by 1 week ( without reason)
• Survey was delayed by 1 week ( without reason)
• Piling Works were actually completed at the end of Month 5 (free float not needed and actual productivity better than expected)
• Pile Caps were completed according to planned programme

Accordingly, the “as built” presentation was as follows in claiming an EOT of 0.5 months

Whilst in this case the “as built” delay of 2 weeks can be justified by the quantity increase it is clearly shown that “as planned” and “as built” approaches can easily result in different delay presentations ) ( in this instance 1 month)

Most Contracts will not specify a method of delay analysis but sometimes in the wording of the EOT clause will imply the requirements

This is true for the new FIDIC contract (1999 1^ST Edition) which uses the words “is or will be delayed” which implies that both the use of impacted “as built” and “as planned” can be used. 

In general, the use of impacted “as planned” approach is suitable for the early stages of a project but as progress increases, it has already been shown  that the accuracy of the analysis reduces and the presentation of entitlement can be distorted 

Since the overall legal principle of any claim is to put the harmed party back in the position it was before the breach/event it is reasonably clear that in many circumstances the use of an impacted “as planned approach” delay analysis would be inappropriate as it can often result in an improved position for the Contractor.

In overall summary, the use of as built or as planned presentations should be considered against the following criteria

Author: James Bristow