(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.
Greetings to ALL
Need to conduct Schedule Analysis to decide on Contractor's entitlement; given the following situation:
My question is that; what is the best approach (Schedule Analysis Methodology) to tackle this case and enable us to calculate delay entitlement with an acceptable accuracy?
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
<?xml:namespace prefix = o />.
Thanks for the advice, may be that is the rout which must be stressed upon in spite of the limited budget/time allocated.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
Cheers
The requirements to prove compensations are more stringent than those required to prove time entitlement. If you do not have enough data then it might be none is acceptable. I suggest to try getting enough data to support an As-Built, this will open up the possibilities for the selection of an acceptable method for the entitlement of costs
From AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03-2011
Be aware not all methods listed on the recommended practice (RP) are acceptable in all forums, for this it has been criticized by many including the American Bar Association. It also lack for guidance on the analysis for resource availability, a requirement by some of our courts missing on the RP. It also makes reference to negative float a concept not recognized by many as it is a manipulation of computations that yeld to the impossible, late dates being earlier than early dates.
I am not an advocate of this AACE document but believe I might be in the future if they continue with the right attitude. Their response to the American Bar Association (ABA) was excellent, instead of denying the ABA claims they partnered with the ABA in search for a much needed reference, I hope good things will come out.
Take a look at this hard to swallow document in search of some knowledge but do not limit your search to this single source.
Good Luck.
I got the point and I appreciate all replies which I already benefited from. However, I still would like to broaden the scope of my questions as to what extent it is possible to conduct Schedule Analysis that may result in an acceptable accuracy level given the situation stipulated in my original question? and what is the best approach (Schedule Analysis Methodology) may be conducted to tackle this case
Regards
My Input here would be that the Contractor would need to understand that most of his case for a Claim, might be limited to that , that he can prove, prima facae , it would appear that sufficient documents exist for
So whilst he might not be able to prove full entitlement , she should pick what he can conclusively prove on balance and claim such, better to have 80% then nothing
Mike,
Ammar said - "Project original duration is one and half years, but the actual is four years."
Do you mean 2-1/2 years of design delay on 100% of the work so the full 2-1/2 years can be claimed right away? Blindingly obvious, hard to swallow. It is on the burden of proof to the contractor anything after the start of the job. If 100% of the design was late a year and no work could be started then he should prove the remaining 1-1/2 years are because of the Owner.
One year delay of 100% project start, without cost increase and change in contract time maybe maybe in the UK where you got 0% inflation rate but not here, two years delay uggh, but 2-1/2 years!!!
For the blindingly obvious portion no further analysis is needed to calculate entitlement. I guess the question is regarding delay where there is possibility of delay by either party or both (concurrent). I do not believe Ammar is asking how to justify the blindingly obvious, he is to justify nothing, he is to judge. Ammar nor his employer shall play the redeemer; he shall fulfill his duty he was contracted, he shall not play de Contractor's lawyer, no judge shall play the claimants lawyer, the selection of an acceptable method shall be solely by the Contractor, the one who bears the burden of proof especially if the contract already finished. If the selection was unacceptable with regard to the burden of proof then nothing Ammar can or shall do other than declare the claimant failed to meet the necessary burden of proof.
Regards,
Rafael
Hi Rafael
If the Employers design was delivered late and work could not start until the design was delivered then you have a prima facae case of Employers default causing a delay - not just on balance of probabilities but so blindingly obvious that even a Judge could understand it.
Circumstances alter cases.
Best regards
Mike Testro
- "In any civil legal matter the claimant’s (usually the contractor) burden of proof to establish an entitlement to an extension of time for completion is on a balance of probabilities. The fact is that this analysis method does not show on a balance of probabilities that a delay was likely to occur as a consequence of the introduced delay events. As a result the contractor will not have satisfied its burden of proof as it cannot show that it was even probable that the events complained of have caused the delay."
I would never accept such method as valid, too theoretical, if the contractor do not satisfy burden of proof sorry. If you are a third party supposed to be neutral then be it, do not accept faulty methods.
In the lack of evidence you shall never make any judgment, if he does not provides evidence he has not satisfied the burden of proof. Our courts agree so much with your assessment that do not recognize the method any longer.
Thanks to ALL
To answer Rafael's question; I am not on either side, rather a third party. As I mentioned; records related to delay events are available (delays such as delayed design drawings for months, employer's suspension of work in certain areas of the project, delays caused by other trade contractors, ...), the contractor already used these record to substantiate his case BUT he inserted these delays directly to the original baseline schedule in order to produce the impacted schedule thus claiming for the full duration shown in the Impacted Baseline Schedule. As far as I know that this methodology is not accurate for many reasons. On the other side, schedule updates and records reflecting timely project status are either limited or not available.
I hope the case is a bit clearer
Hi Rafael
Hamal did not say that no records were kept - just that they are not available.
Lack of records is not a cause for delay.
It is a given that the claimant must prove his case but if he is being prevented from demonstrating such proof then that is a different situation.
Best regards
Mike Testro
On which side are you? Owner or Contractor?
The burden of proof is on the claimant, let the claimant make his case, if he did not kept records no wonder the job is late, on my part the delay is 100% on the one who did not kept records.
I do not believe any court will accept a one sided version of delay events, especially if the proof is not there, a few dates is not enough, sorry.
Ammar
My employer, Acumen, as a tool which can be used to model acceleration and delay in a project schedule, with the resulting model able to be exported back to either MS Project or Primavera. This may be helpful to create the delay scenario in your situation.
Here is a link to more information http://www.projectacumen.com/products/acumen-360/
Tom Polen
Hi Ammar
If there are no as built records then it is not possible to produce a sustainable delay analysis using the accepted methods.
I presume that you do have a completion date.
If so all that you can do is impact all the events on to the baseline programme and see how the impacted end date compares with the actual end date and argue your case from there.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies