(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.
I am trying to calculate delay to a project - there is nothing contractually written that states anything to do with extensions of time within the contract, however, the client and contractor both agreed to re-baseline the schedule when delay started to occur. This occured several times with four revised baselines agreed between both parties - therefore my question is this:
When using an as planned versus as built schedule, do i use the original schedule or the last agreed baseline? As surely no delay occurs if i accept the last baseline if delay occured before that revised schedule?
Any help or input would be greatly appreciated.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
The burden of proof in a civil case will normally lie with the party making the claim or defence to adduce sufficient evidence for the court or tribunal to find in their favour. I would dare to say most of the burden is on the party making the claim but the defence bear some burden with regard to their own arguments/counter-claims.
The following articles might be old but are quite simple and keep the focus.http://www.cpmiteam.com/assets/CauseEffectVol1.pdf
http://www.cpmiteam.com/assets/CauseEffectVol3.pdf
http://www.consultingalliance.net/Articles/Pacing-An%20Excuse%20for%20Concurrent%20Delay.pdf
It's an interesting point actually.
If EOT has been admitted or agreed, is the onus on the contractor to prove that there was no concurrency which might eliminate a cost claim, or is it the case that if the Employer wishes to raise a defence of concurrent delay, then it is for the Employer to demonstrate that defence ?
Personally I think that what I would be prioritising would be formalisation of the agreement to entitlement of extension of time.
EOT always solves issues of time but at times leaves open the issue of compensability.
By accepting the revised baseline maybe only issues of time were resolved and issues on compensation are still in controversy.
My warning about how revised baselines might be interpreted is on good faith, to make you aware of possible arguments. Personally I do not like the infatuation with baselines and client rejecting baselines for whatever reason, I favor solving on periodic intervals all issues of time and money accrued between reasonable duration time windows. If the delay reason spans over a month you shall not wait to make a determination on what is actually accrued. Many times after several months it might come out that what you was expecting is not the final determination but the opposite, better for all parties not to wait so long.
Good luck.
if theyve agreed to the eot then what does it matter ?
Thanks Rob,
I'm really struggling to come to terms with this one - the employer is unwilling to accept that their extra requests/procedures were cause for delay even though they agreed schedules with milestone date changes. Seeing as as-built versus as-planned relies on contemporaneous records to map the as built schedule it seems wrong to ignore agreed as 'planned' changes as surely their approval to the extension of time provides evidence of some form of their culpability?
Don't take my word for it, but I vote for using the initial schedule as the as-planned.
You need to show that the employer events caused the delay and created an entitlement to an eot, and you can't do that if you use a baseline which already incorporates the delays.
The revised baseline in the circumstances you have described, is really a baseline for the work to the right of the updated line in that programme, and what you need to analyse is the work which is to the left of the update line in the updated baseline, therefore you need to use the original baseline, where the relevant work is shown as as-planned rather than as as-built.
I think.
(in other words, what Mike said in the first answer !)
Thankyou for your responses, allow me to rephrase;
I will explain what i mean by my re-baseline terminology (perhaps it was incorrect).
As the schedule progressed, employer requested specific activities to take place that had to be approved by them before the project moved on. As the contractor stipulated that this was not a contractual agreement, and advised the employer that it would cause schedule extension, a new schedule was agreed by both parties. The project ultimately delayed past the extended schedule, therefore do i calculate the as built from the initial project schedule, or the extended schedule (that was extended four times at the agreement of both parties)?
On this side of the pond you cannot agree on a revised schedule with a revised delivery date and then claim the latest agreement is not valid. To my understanding the last agreement supersedes all prior agreements and settles all issues at the time of the agreement [Revised Baseline Data Date] unless clearly expressed some items are still pending, you cannot wait months and then claim something was still pending.
Schedule updates are to be applied sequentially to last agreed Baseline Schedule, as soon as a new baseline is agreed then subsequent updates shall be applied on the last revised baseline schedule.
Contemporaneous methods shall use a baseline that is representative of actual conditions, it is convenient for both sides but unfortunately it is not usual practice, changes are not solved in timely matter, baselines are frequently obsolete and chaos prevails.
If baseline schedule changed during the time window all these agreements shall be considered in the analysis if performed late, in such case traditional TIA is inapplicable, too late.
From: http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/Time_Impact_Analysis.pdf
I have my issues with the purpose of such TIA practice that in my view promote delaying the solution of the cost issue, the most relevant issue as I contractors are in business to make money, they are not a charity. Partial solutions are not a good solution.
Ess:
If you are attempting to contemporaneously document the impact of a delay on a project I would suggest comparing the schedule update from the previous month to a copy of that same update with the impact incorporated in it. This will compare your plan at the beginning of the month with that same plan with the impact. Any change in the contract completion date would quantity the time delay.
Acceptance by whom ? Certainly not by the Engineer.
That is really the point I was making about needed to look at the nature of the agreement to "re baseline", because agreement or approval of a baseline does not - as that citation below proposes - amend the contractual agreement between the contractor and the employer.
In relation to the query raised, all we can go on in my view is the information provided by Ess, who has stated that the parties agreed to re-baseline the project incorporating actual progress. More information is needed in my opinion in order to get to the bottom of this, as it seems highly irregular (if I have understood the concept of "re baselining" anyway), partilcularly considering that the guidance that the contract does not contain an EOT mechanism.
For your cofee break.
http://ronwinterconsulting.com/rabaseline.htm
To Baseline or not to Baseline, that is the question.
http://warnercon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Article-12-Recovery-Schedules1.pdf
http://warnercon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AContinuouslyChanging1.pdf
Ess - when you say that the parties incorporated "delays" into revised baselines, did they compress or resequence the later activities to arrive at the same completion date, or did the forecast completion date get pushed out ? If they compressed the later activities, and reached an agreement that that the new programme should be treated as a baseline programme, then it's difficult to see where any delay can have occured. Maybe I have misunderstood something here, but this is why I say that the facts need to be looked at in more detail, based on the description Ess has given.
I'm not from a planning background. When you say "rebaseline the schedule" (which is not a phrase that I am familiar with) are you talking about an update, or are you talking about revising what constitutes the accepted baseline programme ? My answer assumed the later.
Hi Ess
Your last updated programme represents your extension of time entitlement PROVIDED that all the delays were the Employers fault.
If there is a mix of delays between Employer and Contractor then you have to start at the begining with the 1st baseline and impact the individual delays in strict chronogical order - taking account of concurrency.
If the Contract really has no provision for an Extension of Time in respect of Employer Delays then Time is At Large and no penalties can be deducted.
Best regards
Mike Testro
I would certainly agree with you where you say that no delay would be shown if you used the last 'baseline' in the situation described. The baseline effectively becomes the as built in that situation so you have no analysis to undertake; 'as planned' would equal as built.
I would suggest that it would be difficult to give you an answer as to what to do, without having further information, which would include examining the contract, and also construing any subsequent agreements made, and also looking at the (original) baseline in conjunction with what happened on site.
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies