FORENSIC PLANNING DELAY ANALYSIS, EXPERT WITNESS, CLAIMS AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES

Transcription

1 FEARNSIDES AND ASSOCIATES FORENSIC PLANNING DELAY ANALYSIS, EXPERT WITNESS, CLAIMS AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES File Note- 001-Delay Methodology-18-July-16 Subject: Delay Analysis Methodology 1. Delay Analysis Methodology The delay analysis methodology to be prepared by T&T seeks to establish the as-built critical path running through the as-built works from actual start to actual finish of the Works. To enable the as-built critical path to be established from the project contemporary updated progressed programmes, a retrospective approach will be undertaken in conjunction with both a dynamic and static analysis of the Contractor s updated progressed programmes. Dynamic v Static, Dynamic analyses involve schedule calculations, through simulation using computers and scheduling software. Static analyses rely on the components and common sense of the schedule while avoiding significant computer calculations Dynamic Analysis In respect of the dynamic analysis, the updated progressed programmes have been used to identify the critical paths identified at each update data date advised from the activities that have started and not finished or are to start no more than 3 days after any updated progressed programme s data date. This method of locating the as-built critical path is suitable to use as a form of window analysis. Window analysis is especially helpful when a critical path programme which was updated on a regular basis was employed on the project. To delay project completion, the critical activities of the project must have been delayed. The window analysis only analyses critical activities occurring during specific periods of time on a project. The periods analysed are the same periods of time as those when the project was updated. For instance, if the project was updated monthly then the window analysis would be monthly." 2 To facilitate the dynamic window analysis based on the updated progressed programmes, TT have undertaken the development of a float map. 1

2 FEARNSIDES AND ASSOCIATES FORENSIC PLANNING DELAY ANALYSIS, EXPERT WITNESS, CLAIMS AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES 1 Beware the Dark Arts! Delay Analysis and the Problems with Reliance on Technology, David Barry, January 2009, 2 Kris R. Nielsen and Patricia D. Galloway (1984) 'Proof Development for Construction Litigation'. American Journal of Trial Advocacy 7,

3 Float mapping, put simply, is the process of extracting the float values for each activity from each of the contemporaneous CPM programme updates, then grouping and filtering those activities that were driving the longest path, which also had the least amount of float, to determine the as-built critical path. 3 The use of the float map technique enables all the updated progressed programmes to be viewed on one sheet, and as such the critical path and near critical activities can be viewed from update to update as the Works were progressed over the actual construction period. On T&T s float map all the programming information is made available (Start and Finish Dates, % Complete, Total Float, Driving and Non-Driving activities and all the activity codes). The use of the float map technique enables the contemporary critical activities to be identified from progress update to progress update according to the updated progressed programmes advised by the Contractor. However, this technique used to identify the as-built critical path identifies the as-built critical path based on the float values generated only to the future (right) of the data date. The AACEI RP-FSA states: The as-built critical path cannot be directly computed using CPM logic alone on the past portion (left) of the data date since networked computations that generate float values can be generated only to the future (right) of the data date. Because of this technical reason, the critical set of as- built activities is often called the controlling activities as opposed to critical activities. Even in a modeled collapsible as-built (3.8) float is not a relevant indicator of criticality because the late dates are not used in modeling the as-built schedule. The closest the analyst can come to a direct computational determination is to cumulatively collect from successive schedule updates of the activities that reside on the critical path between the data date and the data date of the subsequent update. The same technique can be used to determine the as built near-critical activities Static Analysis 3 Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts, P. J. Keane & A. F. Caletka, Chapter 6, page AACEI RP-FSA, page 21 3

4 In respect of the as-built critical path derived from the contemporary updated progressed programmes, the updated progressed programmes need to be competent for the as-built critical path stated upon the updated progressed programmes to be a realistic statement of what were the critical as-built Works as the project progressed over time. The AACEI RP-FSA further states: In the absence of competent schedule updates the analyst must err on the side of over-inclusion in selecting the controlling set of as-built activities. The determination must be a composite process based on multiple sources of project data including the subjective opinion of the percipient witnesses. 5 And the AACEI RP-FSA then goes on to state: Contemporaneous perception of criticality by the project participants is just as important as the actual fact of criticality because important project execution decisions are often made based on perceptions. 6 With the above in consideration, it is not to say that the contemporary updates are not competent, however, there are degrees of accuracy to which updated progressed programmes may or may not be accurate. Progress updates can provide a misleading definition of criticality, and often because updating progressed programmes often requires changes of logic and contract methodologies that change the order and sequence of the as-planned for works to the right of data date line. Not changing the logic to reflect the Contractor s future changing intent on the progressed programmes can make any future critical statements relied upon by them as inaccurate. John Barry stated in his address to the SCL titled: Beware the Dark Arts! Delay Analysis and the Problems with Reliance on Technology : an accurate updating exercise is still very time consuming, largely because inputting progress tends to overwrite some of the schedule s logic, and therefore significant new logic can be required. Moreover, things change and plans need to be adjusted as the project progresses. Most schedules 5 AACEI RP-FSA, page 21 6 AACEI RP-FSA, page 22 3

5 are susceptible to the domino effect, and therefore it is not always simple to incorporate a change in strategy or tactics. It is not unusual to discover that even good faith schedule updates misrepresent the true mathematical contemporaneous status of the project. 7 And he went on to state: Moreover, it is often the case that the project is really run on the basis of two or four weeks look ahead schedules, and upon investigation it is revealed that these bear little relationship to the overall project schedule. While technology has made it efficient to produce and publish schedules, it is wrong to presume that the published schedules are rigorous and accurate. Check the context, check the content. 8 And stated in his final paragraph stated: some of the delay analysis techniques require significant adjustment to the logic within the project schedules, as well as the introduction of new activities to represent delay events. Whenever this is required, supreme caution is needed to ensure an objective and accurate result is returned. While the marriage of computing and construction planning has provided the modern project manager, planner and delay analyst with a most powerful tool from which to launch dynamic delay analyses, great caution is needed for therein lie the dark arts! 9 To determine the as-built critical path statically, an As-planned versus as-built windows analysis method will be used in conjunction with common sense standards that take into account: 1. A detailed understanding of the project scope; 2. the plan (schedule, method statements, resources etc); 3. the actual as-built progress data and the contemporaneous records of the project, including photographs, correspondence, reports, minutes etc Beware the Dark Arts! Delay Analysis and the Problems with Reliance on Technology, page 12, David Barry, January 2009, 8 Beware the Dark Arts! Delay Analysis and the Problems with Reliance on Technology, page 13, David Barry, January 2009, 9 Beware the Dark Arts! Delay Analysis and the Problems with Reliance on Technology, page 13, David Barry, January 2009, 10 Beware the Dark Arts! Delay Analysis and the Problems with Reliance on Technology, page 9, David Barry, January 2009, 4

6 Then the following sequence/analysis review will be undertaken: 1. Apply common sense in reviewing the as-built progress in the context of the plan and factual matrix; 2. Apply practical planning and project management experience in reviewing the as-built progress in the context of the plan and factual matrix; 3. Apply discrete schedule calculations using planning software where it is necessary to distinguish the relative criticality of competing paths Conclusion To conclude, by applying the static approach combined with comparing and contrasting the dynamic approach (point 3 of the sequence/analysis review using the contemporary updates in the form of a float map) the as-built critical path will be able to be determined according to the accuracy of the contemporary as-built information available. Whilst some subjective conclusions will be inevitable, the delay analysis conclusions drawn will be based upon contemporary facts rather than alternative and less reliable theoretical delay analysis approaches. 11 Beware the Dark Arts! Delay Analysis and the Problems with Reliance on Technology, page 10, David Barry, January 2009, 5