Regardless of the delay analysis methodology selected and whether it is mentioned in the SCL, the analysis should be based on common sense and substantiating evidence.

Delay analysis is the assessment of a causal event (the alleged delay) over time. The impact of the delay is measured against a program. The program(s) relied upon in the analysis depends on the delay analysis methodology selected.

Notwithstanding the delay analysis methodology selected, the delay(s) to be analysed must satisfy the three-part chain of causation, whereby:

1. A delay event / causal event has occurred;

2. Progress is delayed;

3. Completion is (or is likely to be) delayed.

As-planned Impacted Delay Analysis

Almost as simple as as-planned v as-built. A prospective methodology that relies on impacting the originally planned sequence of works (‘the baseline’ plan) with the delay event(s). Ideally this program was approved commensurate with the commencement of the works.

As-planned v As-built Delay Analysis

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.

Time Impact Delay Analysis

A prospective analysis demonstrates the causality of the delaying event, at the time of the delaying event, using a current project program.

As-built but for Delay Analysis

Also referred to as a “collapsed as-built”. The most difficult to prepare. The activities associated with the delay events (Fragnet) are removed from the updated as-built program. The impact of the respective delay event is established by determining the difference between the impact on critical key dates before and after the respective fragnet is removed.

Read the Full Article.