DELAY ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES- "IMPACTED AS-PLANNED" METHOD

Another method for assessing delays is called "impacted as-planned". This technique is the one most commonly used by contractors in claims for extensions of time. It involves inserting activities and / or constraints to represent periods of excusable delay into the contractor's planned programme. The periods of delay are logically linked to the activities in the programme to determine the impact on progress and completion. This is a prospective form of analysis as it predicts the likely impact. The argument used with this technique is that the entitlement to extension of time is the difference between the as-planned programme and the impacted as-planned programme.

The impacted as -planned technique relies upon having a good baseline programme that reflects accurately the intended method of construction. It does not require as built records but where possible it is good practice to cross check the results against as built milestones. It is the contractors' preferred method as it is relatively quick and simple to undertake, easily understood and gives results more in the contractor's favor. For very simple claims for extension of times, this approach might suffice. Where, however, the circumstances are more complex, such as where there are multiple causes of delay with a wide range of impact, this technique may fail. This is because it takes no account of the progress of the works, contractor's own delay, adjustment of resources and changes to programme logic.

This technique and the one I described in the previous article are easiest and most commonly used in claims for extensions of time. In the next article I will describe two more sophisticated methods that address many of the defects of  the "a-planned vs. as-built" and "impacted as-planned" approaches.