I’ve done a few impacted-as-planned programmes before, however, only based on either one or a few delay events (claims for EOT) so no problem. Now I’m about to incorporate more than 100 claims into one single global impact programme, which the Employer has asked for (only to be used for initial discussions in an attempt for amicable settlement).

Do you relate all the impacts to the baseline dates of the individual activities? Then one could might as well have taken only the predominantly delay event. This is not fair to the Contractor.

Do you relate all the impacts (delayed start, increased duration or delayed finish) based on the links in the programme? Then you’ll most probably get a completion date way out into the future that bears no resemblance to a reasonable completion date / the actual completion date as the impacts will reinforce each other the more delay events you add to the programme (almost similar to the law of error accumulation). This approach is not fair to the Employer (even though as a Contractor I would prefer that).

I’m aware of the limitations of the impacted-as-planned analysis method and that it is certainly not fair, however, now when having been asked by the Employer I would like to make it as “fair” as possible. Therefore, can anybody give guidance of the principles in doing a proper and “more fair” impacted-as-planned analysis when incorporating many delay events into an overall delay impact programme?

I’ve read several papers on the subject, but they all tend to only describe the basic principles, i.e. impact on baseline dates, which are fairly simple to do when having 1 event, but not necessarily for 10 events or more (100+).


Best regards,

Bo