Why do we need Delay Analysis in Construction Claims?
Construction Contracts often state that delays to the scheduled completion date will give rise to extensions of time for specified events, proving that these events did in fact cause delay requires an analysis of the critical path and how it is impacted by delay events both specified and others that may be the liability of the contractor or subcontractor.
A delay to progress of any activity on the critical path will, without acceleration or re-sequencing, cause the overall project duration to be extended, and is therefore referred to as a ‘critical delay’.
The SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol 2nd Edition, sates on page 6: “Unless there is express provision to the contrary in the contract, where there is remaining total float in the programme at the time of an Employer Risk Event, an EOT [Extension of Time] should only be granted to the extent that the Employer Delay is predicted to reduce to below zero the total float on the critical path affected by the Employer Delay to Completion (i.e. if the Employer Delay is predicted to extend the critical path to completion).”
AACE (International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis, April 25, 2011, Section 1.5, B.6 Delay Must Affect the Critical Path, page 18) says: “In order for a claimant to be entitled to an extension of contract time for a delay event (and further to be considered compensable), the delay must affect the critical path. This is because before a party is entitled to time-related compensation for damages it must show that it was actually damaged. Because conventionally a contractor’s delay damages are a function of the overall duration of the project, there must be an increase in the duration of the project.”
If the effect of adding any delays to the schedule is that float is consumed, but no actual delay to the completion of the project results from adding the delays, then the Contractor has no time extension entitlement.
Delay analysis, analyses impacts to the critical path and assesses what caused delay and if it fell on the critical path and caused the date for completion to extend. Only on the most simplest projects may it be possible to prove delay without the use of some form delay analysis.
Hanscomb Intercontinental provide expert advisory and expert witness services to the global construction, engineering and shipbuilding industries. Expertise includes quantum, delay and engineering.
Services are provided from our global offices in London, New York, Johannebsurg and Hong Kong.
www.hanscombintercontinental.com
Project Controls Manager / Planning Manager
4 年Hi Sean,you nailed it very well.Would be thankful if you could share a detailed copy..
Barrister at The Barrister Group, Director at Govericks Ltd
4 年Hi Sean what you say is absolutely. However, much as I enjoy analysing the cause and effect of delaying or disrupting events on the progress of work, I can’t help but conclude that clients that have to rely on it, have already lost any real grasp of what has happened on their projects. It is, for me, too little too late. The much better position would be not to get into the need for it in the first place. Using ‘real-time’ analysis to model the effect of events even under commonly misunderstood EOT clauses can avoid the need for complex and expensive delay analysis. With better drafting of how to deal with delaying events (which admittedly requires a eureka moment and complete step change for drafters) more efficient models for determining the effects can, and in my view, should be what the industry demands.
Project Controls Manager / Planning Manager
4 年Nailed well
Expert Delay Analyst & Quantum Consultant
4 年A passive comparison of planned v as built does not require a theoretical critical path to establish delay entitlement. My recent paper on PABDAM method will explain how this is done. Please send me a private message and I will send you a copy.