One of the most interesting threads over the last three months has been the ‘As Built Critical Path’. Since Gerry started this thread last December there have been more than 170 replies and the thread has been read by more than 2,700 planning planet members.

In the past few days, replies to this thread have referred to a method of Delay Analysis known as ‘time impact analysis’. I have created a new thread for this topic as I consider it merits discussion away from Gerry’s original question.
Some of the replies to Gerry’s thread concerned the Society of Construction Law’s ‘Delay & Disruption Protocol’ and in particular as to whether it recommends ‘time impact analysis’ methodology. It does; and the wording in the Protocol is, paragraph 3.2.11, “The Protocol recommends that this methodology (‘time impact analysis’) be used wherever circumstances permit, both for prospective and (where the necessary information is available) retrospective delay analysis”.

In my view, ‘time impact analysis’ methodology is the correct methodology to use for extension of time analysis and submissions during the project, when an event giving an entitlement to an extension of time occurs. The steps are, an ‘event’ happens, the current programme is updated for progress, future activity logic, etc is reviewed for current planned intent, corrected if necessary; and then, by using this programme, the likely impact of the ‘event’ is determined. A submission is made and an extension of time is granted – before any actual delay occurs. An ideal world (or fantasy world some may say), but this is how most forms of contract should operate.

All this is how ‘prospective’ delay analysis works; and I agree with using ‘time impact analysis’ methodology for this situation.
However, I disagree with using this method of analysis for a ‘retrospective’ delay analysis. By retrospective, I mean where the project is complete and the parties are in dispute over the total extension(s) of time that should have been granted during the project.

In the retrospective situation, ‘time impact analysis’ methodology is based on the referee (judge, arbitrator, etc) putting himself back in time to when the event occurred and using the information that was available at that time, i.e. programme, progress situation, contractor’s future intent, make an assessment and extension of time award. Exactly the same circumstances I have described for the prospective situation.

I have used ‘time impact analysis’ methodology in a retrospective situation on disputes, and the main argument put forward by the other party is ‘if you have only used information that was available at the time the event occurred, then why did the contractor not make an extension of time submission then – and not now a year after the project was completed’. The next stage of the other party’s argument is that he did not apply for an eot at the time because, using the information available, he could not justify a likely delay to completion, and it was only after actual delay later occurred, and having used the skill of an experienced Delay Analyst, he now considers he had an entitlement.

This leads me to my final point, in that the ‘windows’ method of analysis is the best form in a ‘retrospective’ situation. However, this is the subject of another ‘thread’.

I look forward to replies and the opinion of others on ‘time impact analysis’.

Roger Gibson