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. 

Let’s consider the pros:

• Quick to produce; 

• Depending on the complexity of the program, easy to understand; 

• Demonstrates the criticality (the critical path) of the delay event(s) on the original, planned sequence; 

• Demonstrates causation; 

• Does not rely on as-built information, incase as-built information is not available; 

• Useful as a ‘litmus’ test, prior to a further, more detailed analysis. 

There are also a handful of cons to this method of delay analysis:

• The impacted as-planned program rarely reflects what actually happened; 

• The analysis is hypothetical and prospective, therefore delay cannot be used to determine cost; 

• The baseline might contain errors; 

• Does not consider progress or concurrency; 

• Almost no judicial support. Refer: Great Eastern Hotel v Laing Construction Ltd [2005] EWHC 181. 

To deliver an Impacted As-Planned delay analysis, a delay expert requires:

• An as-planned program with accurate logic links between activities and a critical path that reacts to change; 

• The baseline program should still be relevant at the time of the delay event i.e., nothing has significantly changed (other than the delaying events); 

• The quantification of the duration of the delay to be ‘spliced’ between the respective impacted program activities. 

To understand how the Accura Consulting team can support your project with the most appropriate method of delay analysis, get in touch.