(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?
(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.
Hi,
I am working on an EOT claim submitted by the contractor recently. They are claiming for 35 days extension for the project. The project was suspended for 10 working days by client. Even though the project was on hold, contractor was progressing the works to catchup his delays in the other area.
My question is how can I analyze this claim in P6.
What I have done is
Is this the correct way to do this sort of exercise or need to do something else?
Thanks for your help,
Johny
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
EOT claims are the most common claims type in construction projects and also it has a lot of argument between all the parties in the project, every party tries to save its rights by defending or requesting claims , for example :
Source: EOT Claim
Please note:
1. Ths analysis has to be on As-Progressed As-Impacted basis and not on baseline schedule which is not updated for progress.
2. Never change the calendar by marking the suspension period as non-working days as suggested by someone here, if work in any part of the contract was on on these days. Mark as non-working days, only if the entire site is shut down for these days.
Cheers
Hi Khoung
Your article is technically sound as regards the process but ignores the side issues that affect this form of analysis.
1. It is entirely theoretical.
2. Relies entirely on the integrity of the baseline programme.
3. Does not take into account what actually happened.
4. Following SCL Rider 1 will not be allowed in forensic analysis.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi,
I write an article regarding How to perform Impacted As-Planned Delay Analysis in Primavera P6.
If you're interested, kindly read it here https://doduykhuong.com/2016/09/19/how-to-perform-impacted-as-planned-delay-analysis-in-primavera-p6/
Cheer
Impacted as Planned is different than TIA because TIA contain the progress of the project in addition the event thaat caused the delaybut the impacted as planned include the events of the delay only
Hi Ahmed
If the 6 non working days in the calendar cause a delay on the critical path then it will show. If not it wont.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi mike,
thanks but he want to show it on critical path
Hi Ahmed
Put 6 non working days on the calendar.
Best regards
Mike Testro
I am working on an EOT claim to submit it to the client The project was suspended for 7working days by client
My question is how can I shoe this claim in P6. can any body help me
Dear Jinny,
If site diary and records were kept fully and properly by your contractor, I would advise you to use time slice / windows analyses method to assess the EOT. Through this exercise, you could view across these suspension days in which whether or not and when the critical paths had changed. By comparing the claim event with the analysed programmes, you would understand which date(s) the suspension is/are in the critical path. Under such circumstances, the validity of a day(s) of EOT is/are established.
Have Fun with Primavera.
Raymond Au-Yeung
Hi Jinny,
All the above comments are valid to a degree, I would say that the "burden of proof" must be with the Contractor. Your job is to evaluate weather the claim is valid or not. The Contractor must be able to substantiate the claim and assess culpability and their impact on the approved programme.
Best regards,
Daniel
Hi, You firstly need to confirm that the contractor's non qualifying delays are independent of the employer's qualifying delay. If the qulaifying delay was not related, then the contractor is entitled to the suspension delay in full. If you go to SCL web site (Society of Construction Lawyers) you will be able to download their protocol. This has rules on the preferred program to employ.
LH,
It is a screen capture from a PDF available on the web. Most probably using Power Point or even Excel as Anoon suggests.
Try looking into the website of the company that draw it, Long International, perhaps you can contact them directly. Because it is essentially a Bar Chart I believe using any scheduling software it can be drawn even if in reality the bars are not driven by logic but as a result of the point of view of a claimant.
I liked so much the approach of this company I am considering using similar approach in the future, I would even recomment this particular company to any local who would consider bringing a Continental US expert into any of our claims.
Best regards,
Rafael
Horn,
It's easy to draw that chart in excel (I guess it was done in excel).
Dear Rafael,
Can you please tell me which software you used to get this chart --- the one which shows the delays together titled: Summary of Windows Schedule Analysis Results.
I am guessing this is a software and I'd like to know if you can tell me which one this is. If not, can you let me know which tool you used to build this one?
Thanks and Regards,
LH
you should take rising Productivity Rates in Consideration.
let me explain:
If the most critical activity 10 days you will start with 5 m3 and in the 5th day will achieve 10 m3 and in 5th day the work has stopped.
after this stopping you will start with productivity rate 5 m3 so you should analyze this and reflect this difference in E.O.T
Dear:
sorry i have not review the other input befor i past my own .
U mentioned that during employer disruption there is other delay caused by the contractor ,that mean we have concurrent effects and sequential delay event , I would to ask here which event was felt before ,the one will be felt before will consider first this it can e in delay
Again I would to mention that delay concept is differing from the disruption or hindrance.
Before u jump in soft ware u should find out the appropriate tools for fair contractual entitlement.
The disruption generally is granted to contractor with compensation whether is effect the contract completion date or des not.
But the delay was caused before should study to know the accurate reasons behind it.
Then after all of that u have to select which method may apply, but always TIA is the favorite one at least for me.
Regards
Mai
Hi Jinny
You should use the latest approved programme to adjust for the 11 days EoT award.
I assume you mean calendar days.
If you have been told the reason for the award and know the critical activity that has been extended then increase that activity by the relevant number of days.
If it is just a general EoT then add a new task to the end of the project called Extension of Time Award Nr 1 and link it to a milestone - Extended Completion Date.
Then save the file as the new approved programme and monitor progress accordingly.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Thanks guys for responding to my query and all your valuable comments.
Now Client has agreed for a time extension of 11 Days. How can I input these days in the programme? It should be in baseline schedule or on the latest updated programme or the updated programme that was used during the suspension of works?
Regards,
Johny
Firstly, read carefully your contract and what it says about EOT claims. Make sure you comply.
I assume when you submitted the baseline, you were not aware of this restriction on noisy works, and as such it was based on a full working day being available? I also assume there are no other claims pending? Finally, I am assuming your submitted baseline was fully linked and detailed enough to be able to differentiate between the noisy activities which are being affected and those that aren't.
If so:
(1) Take a copy of the baseline, create a new calendar which reflects the restrictions you are under (eg 2hrs/day working or whatever), and assign it to all noisy activities. Analyse this revised schedule for opportunitites to reduce the project duration (without incurring extra costs) and ammend as necessary. This will show you the maximum EOT the client could be liable for.
(2) Update this baseline with actual progress to claim date. If this pushes the completion date beyond that calculated at (1), use the date from (1). If actual progress has been good enough so that the completion date is brought forward vs that calculated at (1), the earlier completion date should be the basis of your EOT claim.
At kleast this is how I would do it. Others on the forum have more experience with claims than I.
Dear all,
I need help from the expert in planing planet.
i have to do EOT claim for my proejct, but i have no idea how to prepare this claim ..
the issue is :
Client has occupied the building (G+1) since 5 months, while we are doing snagging and remaining small works .
3 months back client has instructed my company to do fit-out works for some shell space in the first floor,
the problem is , the client is using the building and a lot of events are ongoing for many hours on daily basis, during the events we should stop all kind of activities having noise (like wall cutting, drilling, chasing,...) this is affecting badly the progress on site .
PM wants me to prepare claim , i don't have any experience with EOT ,,,,is there anybody can help
notes:
1- time frame was agreed ( 7 months ) and the baseline for the additional works was submitted to engineer and he never send any comments or approval
2- Activities affected are ( block works, MEP conduit, sleeves, screed, steel bulkhead, MEP 1st fix (ceiling), ceiling suspension system)
Tahnks in advance
Barakat =
E-mail : engbarakat@htomail.com
Hi R.
Bearing in mind the problems of confusing terms which part of my threads do you disagree with.
Best regards
Mike Testro
I agree with you Rafael.
R. Catalan
Mike,
Thanks for your clarification, I agree it is time for PP to standardize the acronyms, but please not in the way some organizations do that even create more confusion. Like a few AACE International recommended practices, where even their TIA definition is biased and uses some terms exclusive of Primavera and goes as far as suggesting use of some functionality exclusive of this software. I never use their TIA procedure because of its subtle bias in favor of a specific software I believe to be crap. On the other hand take for example Asta's definitions posted on their Website, these are plain in English and easy to follow.
Yes it got to be PP and not the WIKI thing, otherwise we would be forever changing the "standard" to accommodate our own, I even believe WIKI should be scrapped as it can easily be the main source of confusion. To me WIKI is anarchy.
I will follow the official PP standard in my postings unless it goes too far from the US standards as in the case of your definitions, definitively these are very far from the American standard as anyone can figure it out by reading the references. Needless to say that if PP insists on moving far away from what the international community accept as its standard I would consider PP irrelevant and will lose any interest on it.
Catalan,
I agree with you and would like to add that actual status means including the revisions on the schedule that reflect actual conditions, for example extra work, changed subsoil conditions, acts of God such as a Tsunami, and the list goes on, schedules are dynamic and not taking this into account is in error. Throughout the years our courts have come to realize this, therefore archaic methods that do not take into account the changed conditions are not welcomed and in some instances not even given a chance.
Best regards,
Rafael
Hi Mike,
................ my Impacted as Planned is probably your TIA.
I think they're not the same Mike as your Impacted as Planned (correct me if I misunderstood it) does not consider the actual progress, while a TIA does take effect of actual progress information.
Best regards,
R. Catalan
Hi Rafael.
Sorry if I have upset you - we have had similar spats before - I beleive that we are mixing up terms again - my Impacted as Planned is probably your TIA.
Its about time the PP forum got together to standardise the acronyms.
When a project is in progress the only way to estimate a potential delay is to link the delay event to the task and reschedule.
I call this Impacted as Planned.
Best regards
Mike Testro
BTW - If you want to be a moderator just ask ADMIN - they would welcome you to share the workload.
Mike,
I am surprised, asking me to shut up on an open debate. Are you the owner of the Forensic forum because you are a moderator?
I completely disagree with you, I believe Impacted as planned is one of the most deficient methods.
If he has an approved baseline schedule and it is too late for a TIA, then a Windows analysis for an EOT shall be used and a Modified Windows Analysis for the issues about concurrency and monetary compensation.
http://www.cpmiteam.com/assets/CauseEffectVol1.pdf
The above article says it all in simple English.
The Foresight Method is not generally favored by courts and boards, because it ignores the as-built history of the project; it produces theoretical results; it does not measure the effect of delay on actual performance; and it assumes that the as-planned schedule does not change. It is the lazy scheduler option as it requires the less amount of effort. Perhaps these methods made sense on an era where computer time was scarce, times have changed and so most jurisprudence.
With the Contemporaneous Methods after the baseline is validated the rest is a matter of using the available documentation to make your case. The Modified Windows approach even takes out the guess as each window segment is analyzed, is the less theoretical of all when you have the required documentation. In general all methods produce some theoretical results, therefore I go with the one that gets out most of the guesswork based on the data on hand. The shorter the window the better, is like finding approximate value of a defined integral, the smaller the delta the better.
At this side of the Atlantic an archaic methodology that do not address the apportion of delays and that cannot distinguish between concurrency and pacing would not stand in court, in some cases will not even be considered.
Best regards,
Rafael
Hi Rafael
Please don't try to confuse the situation.
Jinny has an ongoing project where an Impacted as Planned analysis is the only possible method provided it is properly compared to actual progress to date.
I agree that it should never be used for forensic analysis but this is not the case here.
Best regards
Mike Testro
The TIA or Time Impact Analysis Method requires you to use an impacted schedule ( "adjusted schedule" ) as of the data date prior to the start of the single impact. All to date project delays, Owner, acts of God and Claimant must be included as this assume all prior impacts have been resolved with regard to EOT. This method only solves issues of EOT but not compensability issues as it does not addresses concurrency issues so it cannot distinguish between excusable compensable and excusable but non compensable delays.
Is the easiest method to apply and for such reason is prescribed in many USA contracts.
http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/Time_Impact_Analysis.pdf
Look also for the Isolated Delay Type Method ( Modified Windows approach ), a contemporaneous method that attempts to separate the Owners and Claimant delays after the updated schedule at the start of the windows time frame. In this way the concurrent delays are accounted for and monetary compensation can be established as well as the EOT. For the window in question this method separates excusable but non compensable delays from excusable and compensable delays, concurrency falling under the excusable but non compensable delays. It start the window analisys simirar to the TIA, with an updated schedule ( "adjusted schedule" ) with all impacts prior to the window start date.
An adjusted schedule is obtained by modifying the as-planned or as-built schedule according to the method dictated by the chosen delay analysis technique. Just take a look at the following.
Windows analysis: This method breaks the project into discrete time increments (windows) and examines the effects of the delays attributable to each project participant as the delays occur. This method adopts the as-planned schedule as its baseline; determines the delay values in each window, and then summarizes all recorded values.
Impacted as-planned method: This method starts with the as-planned schedule and adds delay one by one (generally caused by other party) to an activity to demonstrate why the project was completed later than planned.
Make sure you get it right about the adjusted schedule as it deppends on the chosen technique, is the adjusted schedule what makes it either a contemporaneous or non-contemporaneous method.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15148342
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tobctj/articles/V003/81TOBCTJ.pdf
At home in occasions we use TIA and solve the compensation either by agreeing some number without use of sophisticated forensic methods or if this fail at Court, with the use of "experts" most of which are not so "experts" just a label they assigned themselves because somehow in a court case another "expert" loose the credibility contest.
Hi Jinny
Rafael is quite correct when using contemporaneous planning but to determine the true EoT entitlement you need to start from the contract baseline programme and impact ONLY the delays caused by the employer.
A work suspension is best set as non work days in the calendar.
Add any other client caused delays by impacting the delay events one by one.
Remove the end constraint and reschedule.
Now check where the impacted delayed programme stands with the contractors actual progress.
If he is behind the delayed programme then he has caused further delay of his own.
If he ahead of programme then the interim delay award (if any) should be reduced accordingly.
Best regards
Mike Testro
The Contemporaneous Method hinges on the principle that in order to determine the impact of delaying events, the status of the project must be established at the time those events occurred. In essence, the schedule needs, first, to be updated at the time of the delay and, second, to be updated to incorporate any planning changes to coincide with the contractor’s plan for pursuing the work. The goal of this method is to develop a freeze-frame picture of the project—identifying the delaying event, the impact of the delay, and the plan to complete the remaining work at the time the delay occurred.
You are missing the most important aspect of a contemporaneous analysis, the status of the project at the time of delay. You got to use an updated schedule not based on ideal assumptions as per baseline but updated as to reflect actual progress and the effect of all prior impacts.
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies