The required article for this week is Article 8, Schedule Delay Analysis, by George R. Stumpf. It is an overview of delay analysis methods. You may find some parts of the article technical. Check on Article 7 for basic concepts. It is similar to Article 8 but shorter and simpler because “smoke and mirrors” are eliminated. Article 2 is also an overview of delay analysis methods, a little dated, but still a good article. For the most recent development in methods and terminologies on delay analysis, read Article 9.
Most other articles are on construction claim, including Articles 1, 3, 5, and 6. Article 4 is a summary of an academic study. Article 10 sheds some light on the connection between 4D models and delay analysis.
- Minimizing Costs of Delay Construction Claims, Dwight A. Zink, AACE Transactions, 1987
- Delay Analysis - Issues Not for Granted, George E. Baram, CCE, AACE Transactions, 1994
- Claims prevention: Offense versus defense, James Zack, AACE International Transactions, 1996
- Construction Documentation Used as Indicators of Delays, Hala Elnagar; Janet K. Yates, Cost Engineering, Vol. 39, No. 08, 1997
- How to lose money negotiating a construction claim, Michael Just; Torone,Brian, AACE International Transactions, 1997
- Delay damages-some owner defenses, James Zack, AACE International Transactions, 1998
- Delay Analysis - Eliminating the Smoke and Mirrors, Eric Z. Fruchtman, AACE International Transactions, 2000
- Schedule Delay Analysis, George R. Stumpf, PE, Cost Engineering , 2000
- Current Delay Analysis Techniques and Improvements, Satish Mohan; Khalid Al-Gahtani, Cost Engineering; 2006
- Leveraging the Power of 4D Models for Analyzing and Presenting CPM Schedule Delay Analyses, Kevin Coyne, AACE International Transactions, 2008
Schedule Delay Analysis: In order to do an analysis of “schedule delay” we must first define what a delay is. George Stumpf defines it as “an act or event that extends the time required to perform tasks under a contract. Delays usually show up as additional days of work or as the delayed start of an activity, and may or may not involve a change in the scope of the contract”. It goes on to clarify that generally, only delays in the critical path actually cause a delay in the final completion date. The analysis of delays is important primarily to determine who the responsible party of the delay is in order to determine terms of financial liability. Monetary compensation may be owed to the party adversely affected by the costs associated with the delays. The main point of this article is that different methods of analysis may lead to different conclusions as to who is responsible for delay and therefore the correct one must be used in the appropriate circumstance.
ReplyDeleteThe author explains that there are three types of delays: independent, serial, and concurrent. As the name implies, independent delays occur in isolation and are not caused by any other delays. Total project delay is usually easy to calculate and the may lead to a serial delay. The serial delay is one which is caused by an unrelated delay to preceding work. For example, if ½” rebar becomes unavailable for a period of time, it may delay the construction of the poured concrete walls. The same event may also cause other delays due to a change in weather preventing other work that could have been done without the initial delay. The way I understanding concurrent delays, is they are like two independent delays happening at the same time which fall on parallel critical paths. This is important in arbitration issues because, if one party was responsible for one of delays and other party was responsible for the other, the delay would have occurred regardless, so neither can be held liable.
In terms of possible compensation recovery for schedule delay damages, there are also three categories – all from the contractors perspective: inexcusable delays, excusable and non-compensable, and excusable and compensable. Inexcusable are delays well within the contractors’ control and can expose contractor to claims from most everybody. The excusable delay may or may not be compensable depending on the situation. Non-compensation, excusable delays would be those outside the control of either party or concurrent delays caused by both. The compensable delays would be those excusable (from contractor’s perspective) caused by the owner, agents, or employees. These types may entitle contractor to additional monies and/or time to complete project.
Schedule Delay Analysis: Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe four types of schedule delay analysis this article focuses on are:
• The as-planned versus as-built comparison method
• The impacted as-planned method
• The collapsed as-built method
• The contemporaneous period analysis method
The “as-planned vs. as-built” is one used by the contractor when he assumes he has caused no delays and that the owner was the cause of all delays. It lays out planned timeline and compares it to actual construction timeline. From contractors perspective this will give an accurate time “overage” and allow a just compensation to be determined. The “impacted as planned method” in theory, has delays attributed to both parties and asks “what if” to various delays. Each party will try to amplify the others party’s causes while diminishing their own delay impacts. The “collapsed as-built method” is very similar to impacted as-planned method except that it uses the as-built schedule as its basis. The “contemporaneous period” method would seem to me to be the hardest to compile. Essentially, analysis is done at different time points to determine delay responsibility based on information available at that time point. This would involve analyzing records and schedules at various critical points during the project timeline.
The case study was great to see (a fairly common residential scenario) in terms of how convoluted a project can become when multiple independent, concurrent, and serial delays occur (or as I affectionately call them - train wrecks).
This case from the as-planned vs as-built method showed a total timeline delay of 8 weeks (a miracle in itself). From a contractor’s perspective, it could be argued that except for the initial 3 week delay, all other delays were caused by actions, or inactions, of the owner. His delays caused serial delays that continued to compound.
From the impacted as-planned method, six weeks are attributed to the owner and two to the contractor. The author states that this is a simpler method but to me, it seems to be a more complex analysis, but seems to arrive at a similar conclusion.
The collapsed as-built method in this case seemed the least accurate to me in this situation. A large part of the final determination lies in determining where the actual critical path lies. In this case, as it was analyzed, it was determined that the contractor was liable for five of the eight weeks of delay.
I felt the contemporaneous period analysis method was the most subjective. It seems that depending on the “time windows” chosen, the final responsibility outcome can be drastically different. Although the outcome of five weeks chargeable to owner seemed to me the most accurate, it seems to be the most conducive to manipulation.
This article really underscored the wide range of analytical opinions which are possible on a relatively simple project. My head hurts just thinking about having to go down this road on a multi-million dollar project.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteSchedule Delay Analysis by George R. Stumpf, PE had its moments of clarity and confusion based on everything that was discussed. I have scratched the surface of this topic before by reading the AIA documents and the Project Resource Manual for the ARE and CDT exams. This goes into much more detail but has its moments where I wondered if things could have been described more clearly for lay person. I looked at the author’s educational background at the end and realized with four degrees it might be difficult to write for the lay person, like myself.
Early on the Owners, contractors, taxpayers, and bonding companies all have reasons why a delay is important to them. If the taxpayer is involved I assumed he is mainly dealing with federal and other public type projects which I have limited experience in. It does not necessarily seem to be easy to land a job in this area as an architect when you lack previous major federal government project experience. I can assume with some degree of certainty that these ideas still ring true in private sector work.
His description of independent, serial, and concurrent delays makes sense. Independent occurs in isolation and do not result from a previous delay. Serial delays occur as the result of an earlier, unrelated delay to preceding the work. They are a sequence s of consecutive non-overlapping delays on a particular network path. Concurrent delays took me a few time to read the description and get it, I think. Concurrent delays are two or more events, taken alone can still cause a delay but taken together may cause a bigger headache? Are there better examples from anyone?
On some level I have not thought about categories of recovery for damages as he describes them. He mentions 3 categories and proceeds to state 1) inexcusable delays, 2) excusable and non-compensable delays, and 3) excusable and compensable delays.
• Inexcusable delays: are caused by contractor
• Excusable delays: not caused by contractors actions or inactions. Contractor has no control over. Typically allow contractor contractual extension of time. Must be determined if it is non-compensable or compensable.
• Non-compensable delays: These are excusable delays caused by neither parties (nor both in the case of concurrent delay). Both owner and G.C. have been effective by delay only time extensions are allowed. Items such as labor strikes, acts of God, and unanticipated abnormal weather fall into this category. (Snowtober in the northeast USA? How do GCs and owners handle global weirding?)
• Compensable delays: are excusable delays that are within control of the owner, agents or employees. This includes Architects, Engineers, CMs. Change orders, differing site conditions, suspension of work for owner convenience, and late review of submittals. May expose owner not only to time extension but delay damages ($$$).
Stumpf states general rule is concurrent delays are handled as non-compensable delays that result in excusable delays with no liquidated damages. There are however exceptions to this rule.
-An inexcusable delay + concurrent excusable delay = net excusable delay
-An excusable delay + concurrent suspension of work = net excusable delay
-An excusable delay + concurrent scope of work change= may yield compensable condition
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteThe Methods of Schedule Delay Analysis are 1) the as-planned versus as-built comparison (aka: total time approach), 2) the impacted as-planned method, 3) the collapsed as-built method, 4) the contemporaneous period analysis method.
1)The as-planned (AP) versus as-built (AB): AP is contractor’s original plan for completing work based on CDs and specs. AB represent actual sequence of events during construction including any changes. Assumes contractor causes no delays and owner caused all of them. Con: not favored in courts
2)The impacted as-planned (or what if) schedule (IAPS): uses AP as basis with contractor’s delays added to show total attributable delay time. Follow the same approach with owner’s delays. Cons: Assumes the AP is perfect, owner is only one to blame due to contractor following everything, magnifies effects of delays because of various scheduling simplifications made by original planner.
Cons: Can be one-sided and argumentative, kind of like he said, she said?
3)The collapsed as-built (or but-for) method: GC uses AB that shows all delays and extracts out owner’s delays as long as AP was planned well to allow comparison. Con: Can be one-sided and argumentative and does not point blame at GC, and does not say when delays occurred? It ignores the AP to some extent and requires the AB critical path to be determined.
4) The contemporaneous period analysis (CPA) method uses ‘snapshots’ or ‘windows’ to determine delay and determines who is responsible for delays during each window.
Pro: most analytical and least controversial because it seems to be fair to owner and GC. CPA creates ‘digestible portions’ of complicated schedule. Con: most time consuming of 4 methods and definitely need to be good at scheduling and comprehending delays
Stumpf’s case study follows in the article and the AP and AB are straightforward and the screen shots in Figure 2 and 3 are extremely helpful. AP is 16 weeks and AB is 24 weeks that represents a total delay of 8 weeks (significant if this really was a small house-garage project). Figure 4 is helpful because the delays are categorized as owner or contractor and lets me see some potentials of the Primavera software.
Part 3:
ReplyDeleteTable 1. Comparison of AP to AB per the information at beginning of case study, p.34, is helpful to see what owner and GC are doing that delayed the project and ties into the impacted as-planned method, Figure 5 and 6. It took me a bit of time to connect the dots here. Total project duration is 22 weeks per Figure 5. IAPS w/Owner-Caused Delay. Total duration for AP schedule is 24 weeks. So, 22 weeks – 16 (from Fig. 2 AP) = 6 weeks, charged as compensable delay which the GC is responsible for the rest, 24 weeks – 22 weeks = 2 weeks. Figure 6. IAPS w/contractor-caused delay is 21 weeks. So, 21 weeks – 16 (from Fig. 2 AP) = 5 weeks and GC is liable for liquidated damages and owner is responsible for rest, 24 weeks -21 weeks = 3 weeks. This is charged as compensable delay.
The CPA method seems to be the most fair but appears to require the most understanding about the schedule and what really happened during the construction project. Stumpf’s example in Window #2, page 40, about the owner’s 2 week delay on the window design and the 3 week delay due to the subs bankruptcy helps clarify the concurrent delay idea and what it means to have excusable and non-compensable delay and an inexcusable delay by the GC due to the subs bankruptcy (3-2=1 week).
Overall this article has its limits for someone like me because I am not that familiar with scheduling software and the screen shots help but only to a point. Without having years of experience I feel I am not getting as much from this article as I could? I obviously would not feel comfortable at this point in my life doing any of these methods, particular CPA and say with 100% confidence that my analysis is right. As an architect, in my opinion, it seems design school tries to teach a subtle form of arrogance. By this I mean, design is the most important, or architecture students have the most work compared to other majors so we must be the best. Even though I do not fully grasp this article, I have a new appreciation of the complexity behind scheduling and the time it takes to figure out delays. Out of any of the articles I have read so far, I have spent more time re-reading parts in order to obtain a clearer understanding.
DS
Delay Analysis - Eliminating the Smoke and Mirrors, by Eric z. Fruchtmen, PE
ReplyDeleteI choose to read this article first due to Dr. Lu’s recommendation stating it is a simplified version of the subject. This article presented very much the same thing as the required article without the case study. The author goes a little further before delving into delay analysis in explaining Project Planning, Communications, Monitoring Progress and Managing change as they relate to delay analysis.
The simple definitions of these terms are
• Project Planning: the first best guess on how to complete the project.
• Communication: The project schedule is to communicate the construction plan to all of the team members.
• Monitoring Progress: regularly updating the plan. The updates are to be considered better guesses for completing the project.
• Managing Change: an updated schedule is a very useful tool for incorporating the changes into the project plan.
The article spends some time reviewing scheduling methods and schedule review which we have also spent some time discussing during the semester. After these topics were reviewed, the author defines the types of delays. They are very important to the accurate determination of a delay claim.
• Excusable:
• Non-excusable:
After a determination of non-excusable, there review must go further to determine who should be held responsible for the costs associated with the delay. This determination will categorize the non-excusable delay as either compensable or non-compensable.
• Compensable: is a delay where one party is due compensation from the other.
• Non-compensable: is a delay whose cause in neither by the contractor or the owner. The contractor is due a time extension only.
Another factor in the delay review is when there are concurrent delays. This is where the project is being delayed simultaneously by the contractor and the owner. This type of delay is treated as an excusable non-compensatory delay.
I will reserve the delay analysis comments for the required article because it does a better job of illustrating the concepts using a theoretical case study. Reading this article first gave me a basic understanding of the analysis concepts and allowed me to grasp the case study quickly.
Schedule Delay Analysis, by George R. Stumpf, PE
ReplyDeletePart 1
This article does a very good job of describing the concepts and illustrating them with a theoretical case study. The use of delay analysis is extremely important due to legal concept that for everything that happens, someone is responsible. Now that we have established responsibility for every act or decision on a project, we can now analyze the project schedule to determine whose going to pay (a joke, not really).
As defined in the article, there are three types of delay, independent, serial and concurrent. The independent delay is one that does not cause other tasks to become delayed. As in a delay of a task not on the critical path and the delay is accommodated in the float for that task. A serial delay is where one delay causes dependent tasks to become delayed as well. An example of this would be a delay in completing the foundations, could cause a delay in the starting the structural steel erection. This type of delay can happen very easily to any item on the critical path. Serial delays may require the project schedule logic be revised to recover from the impacts. The third type of delay is the concurrent. This is where there are two or more delays of items on parallel paths. The example used in the article of a contractor default happened on my current project. Fortunately it was not on the critical path and caused no delay.
In my opinion, there are two categories used to define the recovery of damages, excusable and inexcusable. The excusable is when the delay is beyond the control of the contractor, i.e unforeseen conditions, encountered rock on site in the foundations area. This type of delay can be compensatory or non-compensatory. Meaning, the contractor may be due a time extension, additional fees or both. An inexcusable delay is not compensatory and is caused by the contractor or some party under its control.
The article discussed four type of delay analysis, as-planned vs as-built, impacted as-planned, collapsed as-built and contemporaneous period analysis. Each of these types seems to be useful from one party’s point of view except the contemporaneous period analysis.
The as-planned vs as-built assumes the owner is responsible for all delays. This approach would seem to favored by the contracting community for this reason. It is also the simplest and quickest making it easy to produce in order to get a claim in front of the owner. No issue is entirely one sided and no context is provided for the delay. Therefore this method is unfair and unreliable, in my opinion.
The next method discussed in the article is the impacted as-planned method. The basic assumption of this analysis method is the as-planned schedule is perfect and contains no flaws. As described in another article the as-planned schedule is the first guess for the construction schedule. This statement assumes the as-planned schedule contains a flaw and therefore imperfect. This seems to be a much more reasonable assumption.
Schedule Delay Analysis, by George R. Stumpf, PE
ReplyDeletepart 2
The collapsed as-built schedule analysis method is also known as the “but for” method. The as-built schedule is collapsed by removing all of the delays caused by the owner resulting in the “but-for” schedule or collapsed schedule. The flaws of this method are similar to other methods, the owner has caused all of the delays, no context is provided for the delays and the critical path may not be readily apparent. Once collapsed, is the schedule a buildable plan? There are reasons to question the results generated from this method.
The contemporaneous period analysis provides the most accurate picture of how and when the delays were created. This information would provide insight into the actual timeline in the project construction. The schedule snapshots used to create the analysis place the delays into the context of the as-built schedule. Realizing this method is the most expensive and time consuming, it provides an accurate picture of the project timeline. As others have stated, I have never used most of these terms, I have used the same logic. My arguments would have been far better if I had known these terms and methods. This topic is going to be very useful in my professional work.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteHow to Lose Money Negotiating a Construction Claim written by Michael R. Just, CCE and Brian Torone discuss cases where poor preparation for negotiations and ineffective negotiation approaches has turned legitimate claims into untenable arguments. The authors break the articles down into the following categories.
A. Losing Schedule Strategies
1. Blame the owner for All Delays – Surprised this one works. Similar to the impacted As-Planned method with Owner caused delays in the Required Article this week.
2. Ignore Concurrency- a comical example was provided where the total delays days claimed by the contractor was 3 years when the project was already completed. Good lesson on why you need to take concurrency into an account so you do not look like a fool.
3. Ignore Resource Constraints – leads to more float because resources are not includes. The argument over who owns the float becomes an issue. In 1997, maybe this was more common because software was not able to handle resources as they are now?
4. Ignore CPM – Even if a CPM was not required how can a contractor claim a delay or time extension? Per the article owners will not buy this.
5. File “Early Schedule” claims – contractor should have bid back-up and rationale for this type of claim if he wants to be makes this claim and succeed. I feel this is something that needs to be spoken about openly and upfront between contractor and owner to avoid issues latter.
6. Ignore Possible Contractor Claims Yet to Be Made – Interesting, thinking ahead and figuring out what realistic, legitimate claims a contractor may make, the owner can start to negotiate early? Thinking long-term is beneficial for this one.
B. Losing Cost/Damage Strategies
1. Always Use the Eichleay Formula – I have never heard of this and is said to be used sparingly by the contractor. It is a “distinct standby period of uncertain duration caused by the project owner and an economic impact on the absorption of the contractor’s home office expenses” (C&C.07.2). Authors discuss a legal case Altmayer v. Johnson, 1996 that lays the ground work for using this in a federal project setting? It is sounds more or less like stop and start and how much time and cost is this going to burden the contractor by getting everyone moving again.
2. Use Total Cost Claims Gratuitously – So the contractor bid X and spent X plus Y and wants to be paid for Y as well. Sounds like instead of getting a lump sum payment the contractor should have tried to get a Cost plus fee contract.
3. Ignore Overhead recovery in Change-order Mark Ups – Was slightly ambiguous to me. Contractors claim home office overhead, field office overhead, and profit and due to unclear contractual language they double recovery on overhead.
4. Use Reservation of Rights –Never heard of this one either. Contractor states change orders cover direct time and costs but do not cover any ripple effect costs or further extension of times until these can be ascertained latter on in the project. I can see why owners could lose sleep over this one.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteC. Losing Strategies to the Negotiation Approach
1. Add Emotion to Meetings and Correspondence – Logical, if you piss each other off and launch a verbal attack, all bets are off! Refrain from interjecting emotion.
2. Negotiate Without being in Command of the Facts – “Good storytellers never let the facts get in the way of a good story” (C&C.07.3). Sounds like the authors are describing politicians. The example focused on a lawyer who flies in from across the country, without knowing all the facts and goes into the meeting guns blazing and makes himself and the contractor look like a fool over a 9-volt battery. It ends up costing the contractor liquidated damages and receiving no overhead damages when the owner actually had caused other significant delays.
3. Never give an Inch – seems to lead to protracted or unsuccessful negotiations. The example provided was one where the owner turned down three offers by the contractor before going to trial-jury and losing. The contractor walked away with millions. I guess in retrospect settling pre-trial and/or finding a new lawyer would have been a good idea.
4. Use Every Possible Argument as Weapon – Trying to prove inconsequential points and failing can hurt your substantial points about claims.
5. Rely on the Collection of People Who Were Involved – this should be obvious as to why this is not a good ideas. People have hard remembering what they did yesterday let alone what happened months or years ago on a project.
In conclusion the authors state that the three areas where the most common mistakes are made by both sides are in delay analysis, cost and damages, and approach. I hope in the past 14 years integrated project delivery, team concept, and the increasing use of design-build have made the industry less litigious? Mediation and arbitration seem to be used more than simply going to trial to reduce costs these days. I also think with everyone trying to be politically correct these days make some issues above seem like no brainers, like letting your emotions get the best of you.
DS
Current delay Analysis Techniques and Improvements, by Dr.Satish B. Mohan and Khalid S. Al-Gahtani
ReplyDeleteThis is a very difficult read. The authors review ten different delay analysis techniques and describe the weaknesses of each. The weaknesses illustrated are enlightening and make sense. The difficulty of the read is compounded by the fact that there are several terms used long before they are defined. You have to search for the definition to understand the concepts being discussed. Once you have found the definition, you have to go back and re-read that section to get the full understanding (maybe).
The ten techniques reviewed are
• Global Impact
• As-planned vs as-built
• Impacted as-planned
• As-built (net impact)
• Time impact (updated impact or a contemporaneous impact)
• But-for (collapsed as-built)
• Isolated delay type
• Window snapshot
• Window but-for (CPA – contemporaneous period analysis)
• Total float management
Some of these techniques have been discussed in the required article so I won’t explain them (as-planned, impacted as-planned, collapsed as-built (but-for) and the contemporaneous period analysis).
Global Impact: this is a simplistic view of delay analysis. Determine the start-end dates of each delay. Then plot the delays on bar char and sun all of the delay events.
As-built: the delay events are taken from the as-built and inserted into the as-planned as new activities. The total floats are compared.
Time Impact: each delays time impact is applied to the schedule individually and the schedule is updated before applying the next event.
Isolated delay type: this techniques uses the types of delay to review the schedule (NE – non-excusable, EC – excusable compensable, EN – excusable non-compensable). The delay types are then applied from the owner’s standpoint and then the contractor’s. The results are then compared.
Window snapshot: the project is divided into a number of snapshots or windows. These windows are generally selected to coincide with major project milestones. The as-built events are imposed on the as-planned schedule. The successor relationships and durations remain as planned. The resulting schedules are compared to determine the delay.
Total float management: three steps are taken to review the delay. First determine the impact on the critical path. Second review the concurrent delay issues and responsibilities. Third review the impact on noncritical paths and total float.
The authors give flow charts for each technique which are a little difficult to follow. They also provide a list or prerequisites for a delay claim analysis.
• Real time analysis: use the CPM to follow the effect of the delay on the overall project schedule
• Cost of delay and acceleration: apportion the delay costs to the appropriate party.
• Concurrent delay: determine the effects of concurrent delays
• Pacing delay: review the projects documentation to determine if pacing has been used to create a delay (the project has been decelerated to produce a concurrent delay)
• Float ownership: determine the type of delay and the changes in the project total float
• Fuzzy logic: If an accurate as-built is not provided, fuzzy logic is used to logically infer the time and dates of missing information
This is an educational article but a difficult read.
Leveraging the Power of 4D Models for Analyzing and Presenting CPM Schedule Delay Analyses by Kevin Coyne was fairly interesting. I will keep this one short. My interest in this was based on what a former co-worker told me when I had lunch with him recently. They are working on a military project that requires BIM (model). He told me he asked the client how many firms start out from the beginning using BIM vs. doing everything in 2-D and hiring someone to convert it into a 3-D model to satisfy the contract. He basically said the majority if not all are doing the latter, which is counter intuitive for what BIM is really intended for.
ReplyDeleteLike the 5-D estimating article a few weeks ago, this one definitely offers up why adding scheduling software to a 3-D model is beneficially. The author never mentions which drafting or scheduling was being used which would have been a plus. Here is another acronym for those of you who like them so much, VDC, Virtual design and construction tools. The author’s figures are simple, showing a 3-D model and screenshot of a schedule with an arrow or plus sign. I doubt it is that simply to link these programs which he eventually states in his conclusion is not.
He states projects that have used 4-D have come in at cost and on time unlike similar projects that have not used 4-D. Who knows if extenuating circumstance had something to do this? Maybe the contractor was simply better on the project with 4-D and would have completed on-time and at cost w/o the model?
He discusses the prospective time impact analysis, yes another acronym, TIA! I believe this is exactly the same or real close, as contemporaneous period analysis (CPA) from George Stumpf’s required article this week. Fragnet was mentioned in this article and he gives a definition on BIM.03.4, more or less as new or unexpected change(s) and incorporating this into existing schedule and determining delays.
He goes into a number of steps of how to integrate the TIA list into BIM. I was skeptical how this would make things easier, when he shows an image of a 3D fragnet. Figure 4, a change of scope in plumbing and then shows another image, figure 5 with this new 3D image inserted into the model. I thought, jeez, this has to take a considerably amount of time to do all of this, every time there is something that pops up on a project during construction.
There is additional info on as-planned versus as-built analysis and the integration into 4D. I won’t get into it. Just another reminder you need to be a computer genius to figure all this out. One misstep in setting something in a dialog box and you could really screw something up and not even know it? Are these software’s making us think more about the building or about how to integrate all these software’s so hopefully they work in unison, to eventually make our lives easier?
DS
Steve Nellis
ReplyDeleteRequired reading: Schedule Delay Analysis.
This article describes the different types of schedule delays and the various ways to manage, analyze, and determine the delays. The author starts out by describing the different types of delays, Independent Delays, Serial Delays, and Concurrent Delays. These theories are the basis of the discussion of the categories of recovery for damages due to schedule delays. It is interesting to see these terms discussed again – by this I mean we reviewed these terms in our legal class that I had in the Summer of 2009. It was fairly east y to understand the article based on the fact that I have been exposed to the terms and concepts in a previous class
In the discussion of the different categories of recovery for damages, the different types of categories for schedule delays are described. This includes the Inexcusable Delay, the Excusable Delay, the Compensable Delay and the Compensable delay. The article describes what and how each of these delays is and occurs. Based on these definitions, the article then describes the methods of the schedule delay analysis. The four most current methods are:
1. The as-planned versus as-built comparison method;
2. The impacted as-planned method;
3. The collapsed as-built method; and
4. The contemporaneous period analysis method.
The author then introduces us to a case study to illustrate the different methods. The case study is that of building a house. Being a member of a high-production home building team, I am intrigued by the author using this type of an illustration. He describes each of the four methods for the analysis of the schedule delay for the house being built and how each analysis will determine the different schedules for the house. Although the example is a great illustration of each of the methods, I do not find that the tools provided are of much value for the managers of a high-production home building operation. This is because, just like other high-production industries such as automobile manufacturing, there is not very much room for schedule errors; therefore, we are not involved in a need to analyze the reasons behind a schedule being behind schedule other than making quick and spontaneous decisions to adjust our schedules on a daily basis. The author explains that a once-a-month schedule review is sufficient for most construction projects. However, in our high-production home building operation, a daily review of our construction schedule is required in order to make or dates that we have committed to all of our business partners, and stakeholders.
Second Article: Delay Analysis – Eliminating the Smoke and Mirrors
This article was written by Eric Fruchtman in 2000. He starts out by describing the basic principles of scheduling. The first is project planning, then communication of the schedule to all stakeholders, and then monitoring the changes in the schedule. He explains that because the is so much change in a construction project, the schedule is the most effective tool to manage these changes.
He explains that there are two basic scheduling methods used today – the Gantt chart and the network schedule. Each has its drawbacks and benefits. Once the method has been selected, then the level of detail for the schedule needs to be determined. Too much information and the schedule will not be utilized by the stakeholders; too little information and the effectiveness of the schedule will be diminished.
The conclusion of the article sums up what I believe are the underlining thoughts of both of the articles that I read for this week’s assignment – the quality of the original schedule is the most important criteria and how effectively it was used. By taking the time to properly plan and schedule a project based on historical and other data, we can minimize the other issues that involved with the project schedule.
Leveraging the Power of 4D Models for Analyzing and Presenting CPM Schedule Delay Analysis:
ReplyDeleteThis paper talks about the use of 4D modeling to more accurately present project delay analysis compared to traditional analysis, as well as some of its shortcomings.
The greatest benefit in both initial scheduling and subsequent post project analysis lies in the strength of “seeing” the what-if scenarios. Unlike Gantt charts or CPM diagrams, the 4d allows the parties to understand the schedule from a visual perspective. Five benefits of the 4d over Gantt or CPM diagrams are:
• Increased scheduling efficiency and reliability - visual “what-ifs”
• Optimization of site use and safety - visual of various safety, erection, traffic, ect. plans
• Increase in constructability - visualize conflicts
• Improved coordination and communication - visualize spacial conflicts to increase coordination
• Optimize resource time - visualize spacial conflicts among crews and other production elements
There was a fairly extensive discussion about how 4d can be used to help understand the impacts of “fragnets” in a Time Impact Analysis (TIA), which appears to just be a mini-plan to incorporate the change or event into the project schedule. The fragnet term was a bit confusing. In essence the 4d plan again can help visualize this mini-plan as it ties into the existing project. To me, the most useful applications was its use in determining possible alternatives to the proposed plan “fragnet”, and in looking for unexpected events. Unexpected events are one of the trickier variables in almost any type of plan, and the 4d provides a good tool to try and reduce their impact.
The paper continued on to describe the benefits of 4D in “As-Planned vs As-Built”, with the ability to visualize the process and have real time integration into other processes being the primary advantage. The major disadvantages of this process are cost, which in our required article project (a residential addition), it would certainly not be worth the investment; and also the fact that the currently available 4D and 5D software is not fully automated. As this paper was written in 2008, I don’t know if the second point is still valid.
In Response to Schedule Delay Analysis:
ReplyDeleteOverall I found this article to be very informative. It spoke of terms such as independent, serial and concurrent delays that I haven’t heard in a couple of years or in some cases at all. Independent delays are isolated and not caused by previous indirect activities. Serial delays are a new term for me but from what I gather it’s a delay that is cause by a sequence of events causing the delay of the activity at hand. I’m thinking I’ve heard of this type of delay it’s just been worded differently. As for concurrent delays the author states that it is two or more delays. Are the delays related??? Are the delays on the same/different critical path???? Can Concurrent delays be serial delays as well??? By going in to detail about each one of the delays and how they relate to a construction project, owner, and contractor provided a thorough explanation.
From these three delays the author went into discussion on the different ways of recovering damages. The methods included in-excusable, excusable non-compensable and excusable and compensable. In-excusable delays are total in the control of the responsible party. Excusable non-compensable delays are delays that neither party can control such as weather, labor strikes etc. and only time extension are granted. In doing so, exposure to liquidated damages from the owner is minimized. Excusable compensable delays are delays caused by the owner such as change orders, submittals reviews etc. Does the owner get compensable delays from the owner or is that referred to as liquidated damages???? What is the difference between delay damages and liquidated damages???
As for deciding whether a delay is compensable or non-compensable the author discussed for different methods. As-planned vs. As-built better known as the total time approach or comparison method which is the simplest but at the same time is the most rejectable method in a court case due to its lack of detail. It also is used when only one party is responsible for the delay(s) making it very biased and argumentative. The impacted as-planned or (what if) method also presumes the as-built schedule is correct logic wise as well proper duration assignment. It is safe to say that the construction schedule of a project is forever changing and to use this method is not favorable because it like the comparison method can be biased on be filtered to show event progression that doesn’t coincide with what really happened leaving the damage recovery efforts open for speculation. The collapsed as-built method figuratively speaking is the same as the previous two methods except charges of delay may change due to the critical path being altered assigning the delay falsely to the wrong party. The contemporaneous period analysis method (windows method) is the most difficult to construct but by far is the most accurate, analytical and accountable in a court of law. By placing delays in context of time, place and conditions present at the time of the delay every detail has to be analyzed from both contractor and owner in order to be verified. Simple easily manipulated schedule updates will not be accepted therefore avoiding the theory I call “smoke and mirrors”. This method is very time consuming but if the damage recovery is worth the amount of effort needed to construct this analysis it without a doubt should be used.
In response to How to lose money negotiating a construction claim:
ReplyDeleteIn this article the author chose to define and describe some losing schedule strategies. The first being the contractor points the finger at everyone but themselves. In this case the contractor blames the owner for everything that caused a delay as if the contractor did nothing wrong. I am sure this happens often on construction projects but without justifying specific activities how is these alleged accusations considered legit??? To be sure the owner challenges the delay charges!!!!
Ignoring concurrency of activity delays will also cause analysis or judges even to decide that too much time was allotted to delays causing compensation to be denied.
Ignoring resource constraints on both the owner and the contractor is another defective strategy. By the contractor not resource loading the project the project will tend to show more float then is actually there. In return when the contractor ask for a time extension due to delays the owner based on the schedule generated by the contractor in under the impression enough float exist on activities due to not being resource loaded by the contractor and will reject the time extension request. Having a resource loaded project helps activity durations to be more accurate.
The author stated that filing early schedule claim is a bad strategy. Can someone elaborate or clarify what the author is referring to. I though early completing was always a good thing. Forgetting or ignoring a claim can also be costly because if money can be obtained the chance it gets pursued at the end of the project is likely.
As for losing cost damages to delays encountered the Eichleay formula should be used sparingly. The first requirement about the contractor having the standby to finish the job I understand. The second part about absorbing the economic impact of the delay I don’t. The way I interpreted it the contractor is responsible for finding other work to absorb the delay that was caused by someone else. If a company has fully vested its resources in a project or there are no other jobs to absorb the delay in a timely manner the contractor is stuck with expenses caused by the delay. Do I understand this correctly or can someone clarify it for me?
The author spoke of the use of reservation rights as being a downfall or a losing strategy. I have never heard of this method. What exactly is it and what makes it so bad???
I can personally vouch for the approaches to negotiating a construction claim that don’t work. I like everyone else at one point and time in their life have done negotiating to some extent. The author makes several valid points that we all can relate to.
1. Remain profession and the leave emotions out of it.
2. Know all the facts and be able to justify them.
3. Learn the discipline that compromising is a good thing.
4. Pick your battles (you may lose the battle but you can still win the war.)
5. Never rely on someone else’s memory have everything in writing, documented
via email, transmittal but never verbally if necessary.