(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.
| Contract Schedule | 1-8-2014 to 1-8-2016 |
| BL Programme | Approved by Client on 30-8-2014 |
| Updated Schedule was submitted by Contractor | as of Aug14,Sep14,Oct14,Nov14,Dec,14. |
| Recovery Programme | Client have asked Contractor to submit recovery programme, recovery programme was prepared and approved by Client in Jan2015. This is used and updated to date. |
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Hi Hemant
As I said for work in progress you have to impact the events as and when they occur using the impacted as planned method.
If you have an evolving delay then it has to be updated regularly until the problem is resolved - this would be similar to a "Windows" method.
In forensic analysis after the work is complete then a Windows analysis is a waste of time and money because you only need to impact an event once to show the entire effect on progress.
The Windows method was invented by the US Corps of Engineers before computers were available. At each monthly site meeting they would discuss what was holding up progress of the works and using pencil and paper award an extension of time. When computers came on the scene the calculation became a bit more scientific and civilians used it for forensic analysis because that was the only method they knew. Elsewhere in the world delay analysts developed different methods and these were described in the Society of Construction Law Protocol 2002 where Windows is not even mentioned. I was using Impacted as Planned Analysis years before 2002. America however is still stuck in a time warp.
The choice of delay analysis method remains the principle skill of an expereinced delay analyst and the decision depends on the quality and quantity of the recorded data. When information is sparse I have developed my own methods including "Super Summary" and "As Built Envelope" which I have used succesfully in recent adjudications.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the insight.
Below I tried to respond to your query.
Based on the information provided, it is almost certain that the project is in progress unless the contractor has cut 8 months from the schedule. In this case, the issue is to determine the as-built delay caused by the mentioned VO. (I am calling it 'as-built' delay with an assumption that the remaining work will be performed with the same pace of progress without taking additional recovery measures. Of course, this project might end up with a zero delay as well, and I wonder what would be the remedy for the contractor who continuously recovered the client caused delays from his own pocket.) Therefore, the period between Dec 14 and Mar 15 can be retrospectively analysed based on AACE-29R-03-MIP-3.7 to calculate the impact of VO in each Window. I believe, even if the project is completed, the impact of client caused delay events could be retrospectively analysed in the same manner. Please advise if you disagree and state which delay analysis method would be more appropriate to implement. To my knowledge, window analysis is considered as being one of the most reliable delay analysis methods (provided that you have a baseline schedule and periodic updates thereof) as it takes cognisance of the facts between each schedule update, and reduces the amount of theoretical delay in the calculation.
When we come to your question regarding second Window:
Particular to this case, the second window covers Jan 2015 period. Same methodology applies to this Window as well. Since the delay event is still active during this period, the start date of plastering activities, which were scheduled to be commenced somewhere in January 2015 period, could be postponed till the end of 2nd Window by linking them to the delay event. The plastering activities which were scheduled to be commenced in February or March 2015 in accordance with the Jan 2015 schedule would not directly be affected by the delay event in Window 2 as they are to be affected in Window 3 and 4.
I would be glad if you further share your opinion on the matter.
Regards,
Baris
Hi Dimple Dean,
The impact of the VO is considered from the date of impact and not the date of VO approval. The approval process is only an administrative process and not the impact if the work has been started before the approval. For example, the impcat from the increase of plaster thickness (assume more plaster and more labour and material) should be calculation from the date you were planning to start the pastering activity.
However if the contractor can start the work on the VO only after the VO is approved your schedule should show that the pastering activty has started after the VO is approved.
The second question is which programme, Seems to me that the recovery programme has NOT included the impact of the plaster thickness increase. (which is why this question has arised). I belived the impact should have been shown on the first submission after the VO was issued to the contractor whether. Accordingly i think because the VO was issued in Dec contractors additional pastering should be int he recovery programme.
Hi Baris
And what happens in the next "Window".
In my opinion Window or Time Slice Analasis is fine for work in progress but for forensic analysis it is a waste of time and effort.
Please discuss.
Mike Testro
Hi Mr. Dean,
I would propose to use Windows analysis if the mentioned VO caused a delay between Dec 14 and Mar 15. In this case, you are required to divide the period between Dec 14 and Mar 15 into monthly windows which corresponds to schedule updates.
Methodology for the 1st window is as follows:
- Use December 14 update as baseline
- Insert delay event caused by VO for a period of 1 month as the other portion will be analysed in the upcoming windows.
- Calculate impacted December 14 schedule
- Find out the difference between Impacted and Contemporenously issued (updated version w/o delay events) Dec 14 schedules
- Compare the Impacted Dec 14 schedule against Jan 15 Updated version (Progressed schedule at the end of window 1) for justification of analysis
- If the progressed schedule at the end of 1st window (Jan 15 update) shows a later date, this means that the contractor caused additional delay within Window 1 due to some other reasons.
- If the progressed schedule at the end of 1st window (Jan 15 update) shows an earlier date, this means that the contractor either accelerated the schedule or its estimation of delay is hypotethical.
- In any case, calculate the difference between impacted and updated versions of Dec 14 schedule and note it as an extention of time for the window 1
Repeat the analysis for the other windows in the same way. however, when comparing the dates of impacted schedule of a window, you need to use the dates which you reached at the end of previous window as a reference point in order not to duplicate the EoT entitlement.
If you insist on using TIA, then you need to use the updated schedule which is just before the delay event. In this case, the schedule will be the updated version of original baseline as of Dec 2014.
For the delay events arose after the recovery schedule, you need to use initial and updated versions of Recovery Schdules.
In my proposal, window 1 will be based on Dec 14 update of Original Baseline, window 2 and after will be based on updates of Recovery Schedule.
Regards,
Baris Hazar
Hi Dimple
After Impact you compare the progressed end date with the impacted end date to see which is causing the delay.
If your progressed date is later then something else is causing delay - most likely the contractor.
But you still get EoT for the impacted date.
Best regards
Mike T.
Thanks Mr. Mike. This is what I would do, for example
1. VO1 starts - 1 Dec. 2015 and finish to 1 March 2015, I would take the update of 1Dec. 2015 and link the end date of VO1 - 1 March 2015 to the affected successors and update again the schedule on 1 Dec. 2015.
2. VO2 starts - 1 April 2015 and finish 1 May 2015, I would update again the schedule on 1 April 2015 and link the end date of VO2 - 1 May 2015 to the affected successors and update again the schedule on 1 April 2015.
After running the schedule, compare it to the original completion date.
Please advise if my understanding is correct. Thanks in advance. I Appreciate your help.
Best Regards
Dimple
Hi Dimple
If you already have a series of events that have been impacted onto the original bar chart - and this is the next one in date order you must impact this one next on the original chart.
If because of earlier changes you now have an approved baseline with a different completion date then you can use that to impact the event.
If you have just revised the programme to suit your own purposes then you have a problem.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Mr. Mike,
Update on the original baseline programme was only upto December 2014. V.O approved date was March 2015.
Why would I use Baseline Programme If V.O approved date was March 2015? What about those V.O.s that are raised in April 2015 and approved in May 2015? Just confuse.
Regards
Dimple
Hi Dimple
You must use the original baseline programme to show the effect on the contract completion dates.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies