Projected As Built EoT In Use
Two years ago I was defending a contractor against the owner of a luxury house in Hampstead who was claiming that the contractor caused all the delays to his house.
(I seem to have become a bit of a specialist in luxury houses having been involved in four of them over the last 2 years)
He had engaged a top tier consultancy who had prepared a Time Impact analysis with As Built data taken from the monthly progress reports.
This was the opportunity to use a Projected as Built analysis in my defence.
His legal advisor was dead against it saying that I had to produce my own critical path analysis to counter the other one.
I explained that in my opinion facts and common sense would be best and in any case we didn't have that much time. The company MD instructed me to proceed.
The following is an extract from the adjudicator's award.
“Whilst I note that the integrity of the as-built affects both experts’ methods, Mr. Testro limits his use of the as-built data provided by Mr. Delay Expert (which Mr. Testro uses given the insufficiency of as-built records. Unlike the progress calculations which Mr. Delay Expert uses to drive his entire critical path analysis, Mr. Testro uses only Mr. Delay Expert’s completion dates. Mr. Delay Expert’s approach is rightly criticised, in my view, by Mr. Testro.”
“Mr. Testro considers that Mr. Delay Expert has failed to make or made insufficient use of a common sense filter in his analysis This has some merit in my view. It is for this and the other reasons set out above that the approach to the delay analysis adopted by Mr. Testro is in my decision on balance generally to be preferred to that adopted by Mr. Delay Expert.”
I have been using Projected As Built whenever it was appropriate in both prosecution and defence with wins every time.
Send me a PM if you want to know the parties involved.
www.expertdelayanalysis.com
Owner @ Fearnsides and Associates - Construction Management Services Consultants - Claims, Delay Analysis, Commercial, Contract Admin & Management, Project Controls, QS & Expert Witness(delay, quantum & support).
6 年The case for fact or fiction. Fact will win out every time, irrespective of the nuances of the changing critical path that a dynamic analysis may show. However, an attempt on complex jobs needs to be shown, through as-built v as planned windows, that the CP does change and move. A dynamic analysis used as a sanity check will still be required, mainly to show that the projected theory at each update, simply was not built as per the order and sequence it suggested (not always). I find, in many cases, the records are simply not there and we end up being drawn towards simple as-built v as-planned delay analysis and simple CP determination by looking at the longest paths from common sense logic? and as built finish minus as-planned finish calculations coupled with the % complete.?