News: How to JOIN the Guild of Project Controls | News: Synchro Software is Changing

which method of EOT is most widely accepted?

10 replies [Last post]
Hi to all

I found nearly four to five EOT methods namely
As Planned schedule
Window analysis and so on
Why time impact analysis is most accepted
Please respond

Replies

Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 9 hours 58 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3580
Mike

Here seems like our Architects are smarter, they are also quasi adjudicators under the AIA Form of Agreement they have embedded into their contract form so many protective measures that unless the Owner goes to Court and the Architect is found negligent then either the Owner (usually) or the Contractor end up paying his errors, he always get away with "due diligence", forget about "Errors and Omissions Policy", I never heard of an insurance company making any payment under this policy.

Best regards,
Rafael
Hi Rafael

You asked - The majority of the Contractors I know prefer going directly into the Courts of Law. Which is your preference, Adjudication, Mediation, Arbitration, Courts of Law or a combination?

My preference is sorting the problem out as and when it happens - by mutual negotiation - before entrenched positions block common sense.

The real problem is that in the UK the Architect has to act as quasi adjudicator when any problem arises. He is not likely to say "sorry guys I screwed up there - here is a big EOT award" because it would rebound on his PI Insurance.

If I have to go for an incompetent Architect I will always try to give him a contractual bolt hole to wriggle through.

Best regards

Mike Testro.
Many thanks for your contribution seniors
(Mike Testro Raviraj Bhedase , Rafael Davila )
Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 9 hours 58 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3580
Mike

Mediation in the US is a non binding process while Adjudication in the UK I understood is binding. So is neither Mediation nor Arbitration, another boy in town?

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE UK

It seems like Adjudication is not necessarily binding, similar to Mediation but the Adjudicator makes the decision. Not bad on paper.

I believe AIA (American Institute of Architects) Standard form of Agreement has a mandatory arbitration clause. The problem with this is:

a) It is binding.
b) Cannot be appealed (unless under very few circumstances Courts of Law will upheld Arbitration).
c) No need to follow strict jurisprudence makes it highly unpredictable.
d) Decisions are not published like in the case of cases reviewed under Courts of Appeal.
e) You not only pay your lawyers but also the arbitrators which in some cases can be very expensive.

I am not sure but believe in Public Contracts Arbitration is ruled out.

The majority of the Contractors I know prefer going directly into the Courts of Law. Which is your preference, Adjudication, Mediation, Arbitration, Courts of Law or a combination?

Best regards,
Rafael
Hi Rafael

In the Uk we have an adjudication process where a binding decision is given within 28 days - plus some extra time in particular circumstances.

If you don’t like the adjudicators decisision you have to pay and then go to court or arbitration.

Arbitration was fine until the lawyers got involved in the process and now the only advantage over the courts is that the proceedings are private.

The courts are reletively cheaper but may take longer.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 9 hours 58 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3580
Mike

I have no problem at all when you verify the “common sense” approach with what the CPM says. I believe CPM is the scientific way, maybe not perfect but better than “common sense” alone. Common sense is based on perception, and perception can be deceiving.

It worries me when the parties do not look at the scientific approach as something might be overlooked. It might be against the Owner when concurrency is not taken into consideration and duplicity might occur when evaluating separate delay events. It might be against the Contractor when the effect of limited resources is not considered into the overly simplified analysis.

Some of my clients who use the CPM as a true management tool do never call me for a delay analysis, so delay events are seldom added to the CPM as if all analysis is to be performed retrospectively. I hope they are on the safe side and that some of the overlap in delays events is granted twice in their favor.

By the way all of my clients prefer going into Court than Arbitration, they all say it is unreliable and expensive. I always supposed Arbitration as the way to go, under the hands of experts, seems like perception can be deceiving.

Best regards,
Rafael
Hi Rafael

As usual you are right on the button.

The most sophisticated delay analysis still has to be presented to a tribunal who will not - or shall not - understand what is presented to them.

Last year I was at an adjudication review meeting and I was presenting my analysis when a top name UK Barrister and Adjudicator looked me in the eye and said "Why don’t you just fuck off and take your bar charts with you"

I would not have minded so much but he was our brief and we were paying him.

I have now started to communicate at the lowest possible denomoninator in the hope that our judges will undestand.

Best regards

Mike Testro.
Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 9 hours 58 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3580
COMMON SENSE

At the USA and the UK seems like the trend is in favor of specifying prospective methodologies. But these are at times contested.

Prospective v Retrospective: Delay analysis techniques are either ‘prospective’ or ‘retrospective’. Prospective analyses refer to the future, and seek to determine the likely impact of actual progress or a particular event(s) on project completion. Retrospective analyses refer to the historic, and usually seek to determine the actual impact of events upon progress and completion.

BEWARE THE DARK ARTS

TECHNIQUES AND METHODS FOR ASSESSING DELAYS

Please be advised UK and USA standards and definitions at times do differ. There is a lot of confusion about the names for the techniques in the USA that AACEI generated a paper on the issue complicating even more the naming with awkward composite names, the document I found it to be such a disaster I would call it BS. The confusion happens also in the UK.

Here in the US and its territories is very common to specify Time Impact Analysis. I use Asta Development definition as a special case of TIA because here there is also a lot of confusion, so with specifications that lack a clear definition of what do they refer to TIA I use my interpretation, a simplified TIA as documented in some references. Keep in mind that when a Contract clause is not clear then it is interpreted in favor of the party who did not write the contract document as long as it is reasonable.

TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS – AS APPLIED IN CONSTRUCTION

AN OVERVIEW OF THE ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION DELAYS

Biting my teeth’s I got to accept Mike is right in technical terms, but in practical terms difficult to understand by those who will make the decision; the Owner, the Architect, the Inspection and a few others who will evaluate the proposed EOT. More often than not I find our EOTs being superficially analyzed and resolved using “COMMON SENSE”, this I don’t like but this is how it happens, this is the real world. I suppose in our courts the same do happens.

Best regards,
Rafael
Raviraj Bhedase
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2007
Posts: 1039
Shahul, I would advise u to go through book by Roger Gibson "Extension of Time and Prolongation Cost". Even though there are better books on this issue, but they are not affordable.

Its pretty good and wud definitely solve most of ur queries.
Hi Shahul

The most acceptable delay analysis method is the one that works best in any particular case.

That is not a glib answer.

The main skill of a delay analyst is to know what method to use as well as how to use it.

As a rule of thumb:

As Built v As Planned - use for sub-contract delays where work is sandwiched between other sub-contractors.

Impacted as Planned - use when construction is in progress - it is particularly relevent in NEC3 contracts.

Time Impacted - use for forensic analysis - its success depends entirely on the quality of the As Built and other records.

As Built But For - never use under any circumstances.

Windows / Snapshot - now superseded and rarely used in the UK.

Best regards

Mike Testro