Guild of Project Controls: Compendium | Roles | Assessment | Certifications | Membership

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

Impacted Planned vs TIA

15 replies [Last post]
Fri, 2008-11-28 20:00
amy mascrenhas
User offline. Last seen 15 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 8
Groups: Civil Engineering
Hi All
I’m doing the analysis for Employer
I have the foll:
Approved Baseline(BL)
Monthly Updated Programme(MUP)
Several delay events(Employer & Contractor)


Initial issues like site access,design information were used to conduct an interim assessment for time.
I used the impacted planned method (on the BL)because the monthly updates from Contractor have changed durations, resequencing of works etc according to the evolving situation and delayed completion dates. These have not been approved.
The impacted planned analysis gave good results I believe, and I have tried to build in as-built data as much as possible.
However, since the situation is changing, the BL does not reflect the actual so much anymore.

Soon, I may have to do another round of assessment and I’d like your inputs, as to what can be done. Continue with impacted planned or use monthly data for TIA or any other method?

What can I do to ensure the Monthly updates are useful for me? Any suggestions?
Sorry to be lengthy, but I’d like to get things in place, so that it doesnt get out of hand.
Please reply giving me a way forward
Top

Replies

Sun, 2009-01-25 00:41
#1
Nestor Principe
User offline. Last seen 12 years 45 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 151
Groups: Civil Engineering
Hi Mike,

Yes you are right, we need a very detailed as-built programme. Being with the contractor side, I will not use but-for-abalysis if I will be given a choice.

Cheers,
Nestor
Top
Sat, 2009-01-24 08:56
#2
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Amy

Maybe I wasn’t too clear in what I said.

Under every planned activity in your programme you need to set up an As Built bar to compare what your delay effect is having on the planned work with the underlying As Built bar.

So you need to set up a target bar using your planned bars as the subject. (target is P3 usage - for PowerProject use Baseline.)

Go into the target chart and remove all links and constrainsts and adjust the start and end dates to the As Built dates. DO NOT RESCHEDULE the target chart.

When you go back to your planned chart you will have a visual comparison of As Planned v As Built.

Now impact the events one by one on to the As Planned activities and see how close they come to the As Built.

There will be three possible results.

1. The As Planned does not reach the As Built - in which case something else delayed the work and the implication is that it must have been the contractor - so more resarch is needed.

2. The As Planned aligns more or less with the As Built - in which case cause and effect have been reasonably demonstrated.

3. The As Planned overshoots the As Built - in which case the As Planned conditions have changed somehow and the analysts has to try to recreate the actual conditions that pertained to the situation so as to bring it back to the As Built.

You need to do this for every delay event and be prepared that some later events may cause changes on earlier impacted events.

You only use Time Impacted Analysis on completed work.

If you are more than half way through the project then it is reasoanable to use TIA on the completed section and Impacted As Planned on the work to do.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top
Sat, 2009-01-24 08:37
#3
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Nestor

The As Built But for Analysis is somewhat discredited these days.

The problem is that you have to have a very detailed As Built programme WITH LOGIC that forms a critical path.

Where the logic actually goes is anyones guess so any anaylsis on this basis is easily challanged.

The recent case of Shepherd v City Inns was lost for the contractor because the analyst was using ABBF and he got a number of key links wrong so his argument was destroyed in open court.

It is not unusual for only Client Delays to be analysed in ABBF - indeed in the SCL protocol it states that only client delays should be used in Time Impact Analysis.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top
Sat, 2009-01-24 08:31
#4
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Toby

I don’t remeber promoting AP v AB as a delay analysis method - precisely for the reasons you have stated.

The method does have a place in sub-contract claims where the SC work is sandwiched between other trades - where you do not need to know what caused delay upstream just what the delay was.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top
Sat, 2009-01-24 06:38
#5
Nestor Principe
User offline. Last seen 12 years 45 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 151
Groups: Civil Engineering
In one of our project our client is using, they call it, but-for-analysis to assess contractor’s EOT entitlement. To me it’s one sided in the client’s favour.

The delay caused by the client is removed from the as-built giving the remaining delay as the contractor’s EOT entitlement.

Cheers..
Top
Sat, 2009-01-24 04:23
#6
Toby Hunt
User offline. Last seen 10 years 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 98
Groups: None
Mike
What you describe is a classic AP-v-AB; the issue here being that when you "write up" the cause and effect, you are not using the logic of the programme to show the impact of event, but instead relying on your experience to explain what you think happened.
Why would you advocate this, when you can you the programme to show the predicted delay to progress and completion?
Regards
Toby
Top
Fri, 2009-01-23 21:25
#7
amy mascrenhas
User offline. Last seen 15 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 8
Groups: Civil Engineering
Samer, Mike
Thanks for your replies.

Mike, when you say "remove all constraints. links" and create an As-Built - do you mean - prepare a new programme with simple bars (no links) and just Start & Finish dates (not Actual Start & Actual Finish)? What about those activities in progress? What duration to assign to them? Can I use the Forecasted finish (as per the Monthly Update)?

Now, I’ll have a traget baseline and a superimposed as-built programme (no links)with added activities for the delays?

Sorry to be so long winded, just want to make sure I read you right. Thanks.
Top
Sat, 2009-01-03 15:42
#8
Samer Zawaydeh
User offline. Last seen 5 years 7 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 3 Aug 2008
Posts: 1664
Groups: Civil Engineering, Regional Representatives
Dear Amy,

On thing to keep track of is the "start" and "end" of the activities in the Approved Schedule, is to ask the Contractor to support the Monthly reports with the actual notification for the start and ending of each activity in the Program of Works.

Also, ask for a soft copy to be accompagnied with the Monthly report for you to monitor all the constraints, lags, calender and resources.

Best,

Samer
Top
Wed, 2008-12-31 11:17
#9
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4418
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Amy

Impacted As Planned is an entirely theoretical method so it is no surprise that your impacted eventts on the baseline was nothing like what is actually happening.

You need to compare your planned work with what actually happened - As Built.

Set up your baseline programme as an underlying "Target" in p3 or "Baseline" in PowerProject.

Remove all links and constraints and redraw the durations to the As Built sequence.

You now have a clear visual image of what was planned under what happened.

Now put your events in as activities - big bright scarlet colours and see if there is any correlation as to why the As Planned is diferent to the As Built.

You can now start to write up a Cause and Effect narrative explaining why the project was delayed.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top
Fri, 2008-12-12 09:30
#10
amy mascrenhas
User offline. Last seen 15 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 8
Groups: Civil Engineering

Thanks Samer & Charles

Samer, that was a really good website, for me.

Charles, your advice is good for me, as a beginner.

Cheers
Top
Mon, 2008-12-08 04:15
#11
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Dear Amy,

You need to be clear on your approach in doing forensic claim analysis.

You must be clear on your methodology because a lot of approach in TIA are available.

You must be sure what you are doing are in compliance to the proper methodology of your case.

are you following SCL or AACE???

please check.

Cheers,
happy planning and scheduling
Top
Fri, 2008-12-05 07:18
#12
Samer Zawaydeh
User offline. Last seen 5 years 7 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 3 Aug 2008
Posts: 1664
Groups: Civil Engineering, Regional Representatives
Dear Amy,

You can also read the following article

http://www.aacei.org/technical/rps/53r-06.pdf

regarding the "Schedule Update review - as applied to Engineer, Procurement and Construction". I believe that you will benefit from it.

Good luck,

Samer

Top
Fri, 2008-12-05 03:37
#13
Samer Zawaydeh
User offline. Last seen 5 years 7 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 3 Aug 2008
Posts: 1664
Groups: Civil Engineering, Regional Representatives
Dear Amy,

What you need to think of are the deliverables and what is required from you as per Contract.
The approved schedule is your best starting point. Then you will need to develop it an fine tune it as the project progress to ensure that all the drawings and specifications and BOQ are met. This can be done in terms of variation orders. The impact of which you will need to monitor by determining the list of activities for it, resources, and duration.

The monthly progress should contain
a. list of all the activities that took place during that period and their progress
b. list of the manpower and resources that were used
c. update on the critical path of the project. This should be accompanied with a discussion.
d. Financial summary
e. List of delays
f. List of actions to consider to complete the work on time.

If you need more detailed information, please ask.

Best,

Samer
Top
Sun, 2008-11-30 05:42
#14
amy mascrenhas
User offline. Last seen 15 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 8
Groups: Civil Engineering
In the instance that only the Employer delays are considered, what if the Contractor delays have contributed, with concurrency of impact, then it may not reflect, if we use the impacted planned.In this case, it may not be fair to the Employer.
For example,if the 2nd storey slab was delayed due to late issue of drawings and at the same time the Contractor’s progress was slow so that he was not in a position to do the 2nd storey slab, if this delay by the Contractor is to be accounted, the impacted planned may be insufficient.

What are the key things to extract from the Monthly Update, which can be used for the analysis?
If the MUP is far removed from the BL, what are the data that I can insist be included in the MUP to assist in the evalaution of claims?

If anyone can suggest a method I could follow, I’d really appreciate that.
Thanks
Top
Sun, 2008-11-30 02:37
#15
Ferdinand Fincale...
User offline. Last seen 8 years 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
Posts: 140
Groups: Civil Engineering, Pinoy Planning Planet Community
Hello Amy,

May I just quote on the following line: "However, since the situation is changing, the BL does not reflect the actual so much anymore."

Having said that there are several delaying events from the employer and contractor, please don’t expect the BL to reveal a near matching actuals as it will really push the program to go beyond its completion period. For me, whichever method is appropriate for as long as it gives a clear analysis and presentation especially for employer’s consideration. Please note that it is the employer’s delay that count most in granting the EOT for the contractor. Other delayed tasks which was affected due to indirect employer’s delayed action also counts.

Monthly updates is so essential in the establishment of your delay analysis.

Simply sharing,
Ferdinand
Top