Modified Claims Baseline

Hi Toby

Sorry I missed your request for my email.

I have looked at your Scenario 1 Concurrent Effect and I understand the principle.

However I take issue with your earlier statement that this is the usual occurrence because I have yet to come across this in my years of practice as a delay analyst.

Best regards

Mike Testro

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:1183:]]

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:1184:]]Mike

See the above that should help

Regards

Toby

If you let me have your e-mail, I will send you a pdf which shows this.

Regards

Toby

Hi Toby

I am considering your phrase "However, as a noun, the word concurrent describes things that are joint or contributory and in that sense it can be applied to a situation where the two delays have occurred at different times but are equal in effect (as is generally the case in construction disputes)."

In my experience I have never yet come across such a situation where an event on day 100 caused 10 days delay and another event on day 110 caused the same 10 days delay.

It would seem that to allow this to happen you would have to analyse the delay events in isolation and the effect would have to affect the critical path in different ways.

Neither can I see how this system of analysis works within the generally accepted systems and the current rules on concurrency.

I look forward to being enlightened.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Toby Hunt

It would be further contribution if you could kindly give small examples of each type of delay as you mentioned below.

REgards

Dear SM

Origin is late Middle Englishand is from the Latin verb concurrere meaning ‘running together or meeting’.  It is an Adjective and in the definition given in most standard dictionaries, means two or more things occurring or existing simultaneously. 

In the case of delays in construction projects that would mean two separate delays, one caused by C and one caused by E, occurring at exactly the same time and over the same period.  That rarely (if ever) happens and therefore the delays are not truly concurrent. 

However, as a noun, the word concurrent describes things that are joint or contributory and in that sense it can be applied to a situation where the two delays have occurred at different times but are equal in effect (as is generally the case in construction disputes). 

So, perhaps the applicable term should be “delays of concurrent effect” rather than “concurrent delay"

Also, there are various types of concurrency delay that need to be understood:  

‘True’ concurrent delay

Concurrent period

Concurrent start and period

Concurrent period and end

Concurrent in effect

Regards

Toby

Hi Toby

I agree that facts are supremely important and can in themselves destroy an inadequate delay analysis.

However facts alone will not show direct cause and effect - it may be a fact that  an instruction was late and it may be a fact that a task start date was delayed and it may be a fact that the completion date was delayed.

These facts do not necessarily demonstrate any causal link to the delay effect.

At best a Time Impact Analysis can show what is the most likely factual cause that drives the actual delay effect and it is not foolproof - but it is the best tool in the box.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi SM

In delay analysis "concurrency" is when two or more delay events overlap each other to some degree.

When the contractor causes a delay event which overlaps another caused by the employer then there is concurrency in the analysis.

This situation is well described in the Atkinson Law website which has a clear description of Judge Seymour's ruling in the Brompton Hospital case.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi MIke:

Can you please clear me the Concept of "Concurent Delays".I have not found any authentic definition.I shall appreciate if you briefly tell us that why concurrency should be checked while TIA

Regards

SM

Dear All

This may be too late, but a word of caution.

The use of TIA as a method means different things to different people. What Mike has described might be described as TIA in his analysis of delay but under the AACE nomenclature, there are at least 11 other ways of doing delay analysis.

The key to delay analysis is to get to the facts, as these will support / defeat any programme based analysis in front of any tribunal.

Regards

Toby 

Hi Andrew

The easiest way to defeat a Time Impact analysis is to destroy a retrospective adjusted baseline. (See Shepherd v City Inns)

The analyst has to be very sure of what he is doing when adjusting the original baseline programme - it is a very risky strategy which has to be edged around with caveats before starting.

The alternative is to use a Collapsed As Built anaylsis which does not need a baseline at all but if there is inadequate data then that cannot be used.

I would usually decline the commission in such circumstances.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Mike,

I know this is your field but surely the original baseline needs the logic linking adjusted so that when scheduled the activity bars remain in original postion and a critical path defined.

Without this you cannot start the TIA process.

Hi Nigel

The short and simple way to counter this claim is to declare that it is spurious and proves nothing.

Here are some pointers to address.

The adjusted baseline has obviously been set up and rigged to support the claim.

They have not used the Time Impact Analysis correcttly because you do not add progress to the impacted base line - you compare the impacted baseline to the As Built programme which may include progress data.

No contractor culpable delays have been added.

No concurrency revealed.

You can make a counter demonstration by impacting one or two of the more obvious delays onto the original baseline with no adjustments.

You can also prepare a list of known contractor delays and ask them to re run the analysis with these events in their correct order.

If you want any more detailed advice then contact me directly.

Best regards

Mike Testro

you can make all open ends critical;

or connect them all to the finish milestone;

or maybe by making a completely new plan, that you knew is the proper way of doing it.