Ive scanned previous strings but found nothing relevant. Heres the scenario, comments and reference welcome based on experience / accepted principles:
On our project we are quite simply utilising the baseline programme (Contract Programme) for delay analysis / assessment. Despite the baseline programme having been approved it was subsequently clear to all parties as work progressed that there were various sequencing errors - som of which were on the as-built critical path (to be expected in any 2000+ activity programme)
Opportunity existed under the contract for the errors to be corrected in a revised programme. Despite request for such, this approach was not taken up during the course of the works for various reasons (note, a revised programme that contains an element of progress is different from a corrected baseline programme).
Unfortunately it is only now, at the tail end of the project (beyond substantial completion), that the claim resolution has received the appropriate commitment from the various parties. With hindsight (as-built knowledge) the various sequencing errors contained in the baseline programme have become evident and the contractor has put forward an approach whereby a corrected version of the baseline programme is utilised for demonstration / assessment of delay / EOT entitlement.
By going down the road of accepting post-work corrections to the baseline programme Im fundamentally concerned that such a programme is not defined under the contract and that such a programme could prove unfair to the parties involved i.e. in the process of correcting the programme, concurrent activities will be resequenced in series, which if original completion objectives are to be achieved will require squeezing the critical path - this will potentially yield dates that are earlier than those presented / anticipated during the course of the work and will also present as-built progress delays associated with activity durations that are now reduced.
Beyond my fundamental concerns, there are of course doubts over what would be deemed acceptable corrections. Impossible would warrant a correction, but Impractical may well be something discovered on hindsight that needs to be lived with on the basis that it is not impossible and has in theory been sequenced and priced aka the baseline programme.
Does anyone out there have direct experience or points of reference with regards preparing / accepting a corrected baseline programme (post-work) for delay analysis? Is it an accepted industry standard?
Replies