As-Planned vs As-Built Delay Analysis

As-Planned vs As-Built is a simplistic, retrospective methodology, which in its simplest form compares the as-built program to the planned (baseline) program.

Usually used to substantiate ‘global’ claims, whereby the various heads of claim are not independently assessed, rather they are bundled into a single claim.

Before determining whether to use this method of analysis, the pros, cons, and requirements should be considered.

The Pros

• Quick to produce in its simplest form i.e. comparing the as-planned program to a single as-built;  

• Requires minimal program updates i.e. frequently updated programs are not available;  

• Easy to understand if the project is simple and there are very few delays;  

• The analysis can be broken down into ‘windows’ or time slices for clarity, such as the time-slice windows analysis methodology.  

The Cons

• The baseline and as-built programs must be very similar;  

• Fails to consider concurrency in its simplest form;  

• The ‘as-built’ program is rarely dynamic with a historical critical path i.e., only start and finish dates are recorded;  

• Causation is generally inferred, not proven;  

• Some judicial support, especially in the form of a time-slice windows analysis (as-built program with critical path). Refer: V601 Developments Pty Ltd v Probuild Construction Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 846.  

Requirements

An accepted, simple as-planned program;  

• An as-built program that is very similar, in terms of key sequence, to the as-planned program. Does not need to be a program with a critical path, although much more convincing if it is;  

• A very convincing narrative or a variation of the methodology that uses time-slices and a critical path that has been determined contemporaneously. 

---

Back to News and Insights

Related News and
Insights from Accura