(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.
If you have time to consider this I would appreciate you thoughts :-)
The SCENARIO:
1: A baseline schedule was produced and during the course of the works it was used by way of an Impacted As-Planned analysis to demonstrate delay to the Works and claim an EoT. Let's say the the contract was 2 years long and was due to complete at the end of 2021 with an EoT claim for 4 months pushing the end date to end of April 2022.
2: A secondary baseline (which is perhaps better described as a tentative target schedule with no promises by the Contractor who maintains his right to the claimed [and awarded?1] EoT) is produced by the Contractor which, allowing for the delay claimed, does mitigate some of the delay and pulls the Entitled Completion date back to the end of January 2022... a saving of 3 months on the new Entitled completion date but still a month later than the originally contracted completion date of end of December 2021... Let's say the schedule has a datadate of July 2021.
3: In say September 2021 the Contractor suffered a further delay of 2 months to the Works which he needs to demonstrate to the Client.
The QUESTION(s):
Who owns the mitigation:
Thanks for your thoughts
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Rafeal,
Thanks for the reply and I do understand where you are coming from with regard to, potentially, differing baselines and have considered whether both impact analysis' should be carried out on the original baseline (which would/could result in a 4+2 scenario, although the actual result may differ from a straight A+B) or whether by using the secondary baseline we are indeed using the latest progressed schedule before the delay events in order to take into account the actual status of the works prior to assessing the dleay event(s).
It's all very interesting and very much open to debate since, like law, it's open to interpretation, point of view and more likely than not, which side of the fence you might be sat.
Regards
Which baseline schedule shall I use for my delay analysis? - Kenzie Group
Well the answer is simply all of them! Let me explain, in any robust delay analysis you are in essence describing what should have and what actually did happen during the currency of the project. So, if the planned intent changed during the course of the project then you need to explain it and account for it within your delay analysis.
Hurry Up and Wait: Dealing with Delays When the Project Still Finishes Early
Rafael, while I understand that different methodologies can be used, I am trying to keep the scenarios as simple as possible (which is difficult I know when talking about delay analysis because it is like a can of worms)
But, in any case thanks for the early responses with the thought of 3 months project float being created if the schedule was approved being somewhat intriguing but would question whether, since described as a tentative target schedule with no promises by the Contractor who maintains his right to the claimed [and awarded?1] EoT, that it can actually be approved by the Client but instead should be regarded as 'for information only'
That said, if that were so then could the Contractor even use it for further analysis or should he revert to the previous (original) baseline schedule for the ongoing analysis, noting that differences between the mitigated schedule and the original would be such that they would react differently and providing differing results
Rafael, while I understand that different methodologies can be used, I am trying to keep the scenarios as simple as possible (which is difficult I know when talking about delay analysis because it is like a can of worms)
But, in any case thanks for the early responses with the thought of 3 months project float being created if the schedule was approved being somewhat intriguing but would question whether, since described as a tentative target schedule with no promises by the Contractor who maintains his right to the claimed [and awarded?1] EoT, that it can actually be approved by the Client but instead should be regarded as 'for information only'
That said, if that were so then could the Contractor even use it for further analysis or should he revert to the previous (original) baseline schedule for the ongoing analysis, noting that differences between the mitigated schedule and the original would be such that they would react differently and providing differing results
AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03
CHOOSING A METHOD
There is no requirement that the analyst select only one method to analyze a project. Some cases would necessitate the use of different methods for different phases of the project based on factors, including but not limited to, such as the nature of the claim (compensability versus excusability) and source data availability.
Neil,
I think this is a great question, and I look forward to reading responses from the forensics experts.
To me, the issue comes down to who owns the terminal float (or Project float) under the contract. This is easy to answer in NEC contracts (the contractor owns all the terminal float as schedule buffer against his contractual completion date, and Client delays may not intrude on this), so the total EOT would be 4+2=6 months. In North American contracts, however, I think most owners would claim that the contractor's mitigated schedule, once approved, effectively created 3 months of "float" that belongs to the "project", and no further EOT would be due for a two-month delay.
The situation illustrates very well why many owners resist granting any EOTs based on prospective time impact analyses (TIAs), which are likely conservative. They instead prefer to wait until "all the chips are down" and a retrospective analysis can be performed. t
My own further thoughts are that the second option is not possible since Completion Dates can only move in one direction (LATER) with there being no mechanism allowing the Completion date to be EARLIER than it is.
As a result I suggest the question is adjusted to be:
Which schedule should be impacted with the second delay, the original baseline that's already been impacted with first delay (i.e. 4+2 = 6) or the mitigated schedule (i.e. 4+2=6 while disregarding mitigation)
Thxs
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies