(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 All
We are about to conduct a forensic analysis for EOT entitlement, work is still in progress and one could probably say 'Time is at large' on the project.
The only option seems to be Impacted vs as-planned for each change/delay event that has been recognized. The baseline is basically rubbish.
Anyone have tips for improving this method - as it it is very theorectical and may be rejected as such. Contract states each change must have a time and cost element therefore EOT, in this case will be progressive with a final target date reflected by the recovery plan.
Any help appreciated.
Aidan
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Mike annd I tend to think quite similar and on this subject, we are no different.
Powerrpoject is a good package because it is easy to get clear programmes out for presentation purposes.
Forget trying to logic link the schedule if possible and of course don't use the re-schedule button. It is best to explain the assumptions, actions and conclusions in a narrative text rather than relying on the scheduling rules of the software. (dont forget "garbage in, garbage out")
Mike also alludes to the very real problem with a collapsed as-built analysis. Although my view is that a critical path is not so impossible to describe in an as-built (again it is possible to demonstrate reasonableness), the process of removing periods for delay is so subjective as to be problematic. If you identify delay events, then suppose what the delay periods would be, then take them away from the as-built what do you have left? Its supposed to match the as-planned but you say you don't have one that is reliable or believable. All you've shown is that youv'e taken off the first number you thought of!
If you have reliable as-built information you might prefer to produce sub-nets to show that specific tasks took longer than would reasonably have been the case
Good luck with it
Regards
Ken
Hi Aidan
I have been involved in delay analysis for the last 18 years and without doubt the best software to show the results is Asta Powerproject.
Even thouhg 70% of the work is done on spreadsheets and 20% on bar charts (the last 10% on word) that 20% is essential in telling the story.
In P6 you cant even change the colour of a delay event into bright scarlet so that it stands out.
(I like to use a pale blue for the innocent side and turd grey for the baddies)
Then you can add any number of goodies such as:- page breaks, curved vertical links, split / join tasks, selected links that can be switched on and off, multiple views on one page, and that is just the visuals.
The left hand columns are directly related to excell so any data can be copy pasted back and forth - that may not seem much but an as built chart can be developed from a spreadsheet in 15 seconds and resource level changes just as quickly.
Enough for now.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Thanks again Mike
If i may ask...would you consider Powerproject better than P6 and also would you also recommend ScheduleAnalyzer?
In your experience for EOT claims (regardless of methodolgy) which software is best?
We are a big-ish firm but do not use P6 correctly nor do we have any very good planners, hence why i am struggling through it (background is contracts) you input would be very helpful.
Kind regards
Aidan
Hi Aidan
A colapsed as built or as built but for is riddled with problems.
No matter how good your as built records you still have to put a critical path into the as built programme and that is mostly guesswork.
The principle is relatively simple in that it is assumed that all the delays are embedded in the as built programme so if you remove the delay periods from the as built programme it will collapse back to the as planned thus proving that the delay events caused the delay.
It is popular because it does not need a realistic baseline programme to demonstrate the point.
The method however is easily debunked by attacking the logic in the as built programme that created the criticality.
The usual method is
1. To start with the last task in the as built programme.
2. Having determined the date and duration of any delay events in this task the relevant section is removed from the as built task. NOTE - you can't do this in P6 or P3 PowerProject works ok.
3. You cant just reduce the as built duration because that will affect any logic in the system.
4. Having removed the delay duration then reschedule and note the new end date.
5. Then go on to the next but last and repeat to the end.
As the system progresses it is very easy to replace a logic link with one that supports your case and no one will know that this was how it was to start with.
In your current situation this is probably the best way forward - particularly if you have no baseline programme to start with.
However a global claim may be more plausible in a negotiation environment.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Thanks Ken/Mike
We have rejected the clients offer and have begun forming a new schedule to completion, some agreements have been made at a high level regarding LD's and the change orders.
If you dont mind i've been landed with another schedule from different project in the region and need some help.
Its an as-built schedule as again no baseline ever existed, looking at doing a 'but for' analysis, records are reeasonable.
Could you explain how to remove the actual start/finish dates from the as-built to create a modelled schedule for extracting the owner delays and changes?
I have Keith Pickavance's Book (D/D in construction contracts) in front of me for guidance. Global change does not seem to work so i am currently going though activity by activity removing the start/finish dates, setting % complete to zero and ensuring the start finish dates match the actual.
I have a feeling I may be playing snooker with a rope!
Any advice is deeply appreciated.
Aidan
The Employer's "offer" to waive LDs in return for you not pursuing prolongation costs is empty because he has no right to LDs in the first place.
As Mike says, ignore this and submit a new programme to completion with a new price stating that time is at large.
As for an As-Planned Impacted analysis, this is of no use because, as you say, the "baseline is rubbish".
It seems that no analysis is really necessary - the problem is one of contract.
Let us know how you get on
Ken
Hi Aidan
You are probably correct that not only is time at large but you have no viable contract agreement.
Ignore the employers offer and negotiate a new contract.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Thanks Mike.
There is no EOT clause in the contract, in fact there is no contrract only a Letter of Intent and then some general articles that do not have any Schedule related provisions. THe LOI has expired but the general articles have taken over as the eenforrcing agreement between the 2 parties. These articles are very vague. THe change order clause is the only mecchanism we see that will allow for an Extension to the contract duration. Delay/disruption Etc also fall under the change order clause. Obviously the project has been mismanaged by previous project team.
What is strange is the client has agreed to relieve us of LD's provided we DO NOT submit a claim for EOT? By waiving LD's are they not implying that contractor is not culpable for the extension of Contract? LD's are far less than our indirect costs for the extension thats why we are going forward with the demonstration for EOT.
Any help appreciated.
Hi Aidan
To say that time is at large on the project is a very bold statement.
You will not get time at large if there is an EoT clause that is being reasonably implemented.
I am assuming that because work is in progress you are attempting to show the likely delay effect on the critical path by impacting delay events.
In which case yoiu are right in that it is an entirely theoretical excercise and the degree of theory is in direct proportion to the deficiencies in your programme - so if you have any of the following in your programme then forget all about your EoT.
1. Constraints
2. SS FF Links
3. Lead Lags - plus or minus
4. Open end tasks
5. Multi task bars
6. Multi location bars
7. or even Multi Task / location bars
You have to impact the event precisely in the programme - so if you have an event that delays the installation of the electrical 1st fix on level 4 then you must know PRECISELY when electrical 1st fix is planned to start on level 4 - including what float is available - plus you have to know where it is after the first 20 events have been impacted and what float remains.
Also you must calculate the date of impact of each event - The date on a change order is not enough.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies