Which way of these 2 ways is more correct to count delay days?
Steel was supposed to take 95 Days, it took 142. = 47 Day difference = 47 Day Delay. You could argue the contractor is "owed" 47 days.
Steel was supposed to take 95 Days, it took 142. But 2 of its successors completed in the meantime and each were 10 days, so is the delay 27 Days? You could argue "the effect" was 27 Day delay.
(to further complicate it the contractor delayed the successor to the above successor 16 days so in my opinion that is concurrent, and so 11 is non-current, 16 are concurrent of the 27.) - but maybe that is complicating it too much.
Which is correct? ie, more used/legal in the USA.
I am answering in part my own question with this answer: AACEI RP29R - there are two methods to quantify this:
Static and . Static Logic Observation is the full duration, Dynamic Logic Observation can subtract out the items that were already complete. Which method is more common?
Even more simple: if a delay caused an activity to take 47 days longer, do you simply add 47 days to the end of the job? What if in the critical path that occured after the delay 20 days of work occured early? Couldn't you say that added 20 days of float and the delay should be 47-20? = 27 Calendar Days?
Is this a real delay calculation (makes sense logically): "The Delay" minus work completed ahead during the delay = the true delay. The only way this would be wrong is if there was 2nd delay that was just as long.
Is this a real delay calculation (makes sense logically): "The Delay" minus work completed ahead during the delay = the true delay. The only way this would be wrong is if there was 2nd delay that was just as long.
Boils down to does the contractor get days because "they were taken by the owner's delay and simply legally owed wether the schedule needs them or not"
or
The contractor only gets the days if the schedule at the time shows they needed it. If the contractor creates a delay later, it is still a delay even though the owner used days earlier. Supporting this arguement is the idea is that either party gets to use the float.
Let me "re-phrase" this question: You have 100 days to build something in 5 steps. Due to owner delays, you start 20 days later, BUT the first 20 activity was already done, because that scope changed from the baseline. Are they owed a 20 day extension to do 80 days of work in 100 days or is there no delays because that work was done prior out of sequence anyway? This in some ways reminds me of (I hear this all the time) when owners can only collect on liquidated damages when there really were damages. - I always thought they should no matter what because that is the contract.
Here all the delays occurred due to the Contractor's slow progress.
The critical path of delay from steel works to be analyzed. I believe the successor activities are in this critical path driving the project completion date.
27 days already happened because of steel erection, further to that additional 16 days in successor activities, assuuming it is in the same path, then the overall delay to project will be 27+16=43 days.
I guess a 3rd way would be to take into account the actual length of the full project or project to date because this one is not finished. I guess that would be "As Built" method. What do you do when the 4 delay count methods produce different answers? (4 main methods, about 8 methods) which methods considered the best?
I guess a 3rd way would be to take into account the actual length of the full project or project to date because this one is not finished. I guess that would be "As Built" method. What do you do when the 4 delay count methods produce different answers?