DELAY ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Delay analysis is widely debated construction law subject due to number of projects not completed on time, the financial complications of late completion and often the quite different conclusions that can result depending upon the method of analysis used.

There are several methods for delay analysis which have advantages and disadvantages. Delay analysis is a technique used to identify the causes of delay and impact they have on progress and completion of a project. Without it the contractor will fail to demonstrate any entitlement to extension of time ( EOT ). 

It is crucial to any claim that the most appropriate method of delay analysis is adopted. If you choose a method that fails to deal with issues such as culpable delays, concurrent delays and changes in logic than the claim might be easily rebutted. Whereas, using a sophisticated method for a simple issue can be waste of time and money. A number of factors can influence the selection of approach-requirements of the contract, quality of contractor's planned programme, quality and extent of records and the complexity of the issue.

Methods fall into two categories: prospective or retrospective. Prospective techniques are those that predict the likely impact on the progress of the works. Retrospective techniques are those that seek to demonstrate the actual impact on the works. The latter can be used after the works have been completed or after the impact of the delay event has ceased. Prospective analysis can be used both before or after the delay effect has taken place.  

The first method is called "as planned vs. as build". This is retrospective method that involves a simple comparison of contractor's planned programme as to how it intended to execute the works with the actual events. This is done by drawing bars or lines on the planned programme that shows when the activities actually started and finished. The argument put forward when this technique is used is that the difference between the two programmes is the entitlement to extension of time.

This technique requires the contractor;s planned programme and good as built records of when the works has been undertaken. Since it is a simple graphical comparison, there's no need to have a properly logic linked programme or to use planning software. Its other advantages is that it is quick and simple to prepare and is easily understood.

The method has a number of drawbacks. It does not identify who is at fault, it does not demonstrate cause and effect, it does not take into account the contractor's culpable delays and it can only be used retrospectively. As a result, claims for extension of time based solely on this method might be not successful. Nevertheless, it is often the first step in analyzing delays as it can quickly highlight those activities that did not proceed as planned. 

In the next article I will describe  the other retrospective method called "impacted as-planned".