Case 1 - If it is between Owner (A) and Contractor (B), I will penalised the owner for the amount of delay he caused less the deliverate delays caused by the Contractor.
Case 2 - If Case is between 2 Contractors, I will calculate impact of delay individually and allocate delay proportionately on a shared basis. Deliverate delays is very difficult to prove and if the other party can prove it, then the party concern should be liable for the amount of delay.
I don't want to spoil your party but the two methods of delay analysis you mention - As Built v As Planned and Collapsed as Built do not produce results that can demonstrate concurrency.
I think this is the main cause of your dilemma.
It has to be cause and effect on the critical path by individual events - Time Impact Analysis as define in the SCL protocol.
As for when there are more than two parties involved that just adds another layer of complication but the same rules apply.
Which delay event lasted longer AND caused further delay and that is where you need a Time Impact Analysis for each event.
As for if one party deliberately delayed his activities then that is a seperate delay event in itself.
Sorry if I can't be more pro active.
I recently had to advise in Arbitration on concurrency in an As Built v As Planned analysis and the best I could do was to share out the delay event durations as a percentage to each party that caused the delay and then apply that percentage to the overal delay period.
Thus allocating blame pro rata to the delay caused - complete nonsense of course but it worked as a broad demonstration.
Even this would be difficult if there are more than two parties to share the blame.
All the delay analysis have been done (as planned vs. as built with good records, collapsed as-built) so all delays, events, cause and effect and everything has been established and can be proven by records, misc. MoM, site diaries, photograps, casting logs, etc.
Party A and B doesn't necessarily have to be Employer and Contractor. Can also be 2 contractors on same project working for same employer, 2 joint venture partners, 2 sub-contractors under Main Contractor, etc.
No matter what - and I know there is no right answer when it comes to delay analysis - but what is your gut feeling or "simple but with reservations"-answer to the raised question with the 100 and 70 days and so on, assuming that everything has been established and both party A and B is agreeing that this is how the situation is. And secondly (see original question) does the answer change if party B had deliberately delayed part (50 days out of 70) of his activities?
Concurrency rules are relatively simple to understand but fiendishly complex to apply.
First you have to demonstrate direct cause and effect of each event to show the period of delay generated and then you have to look at all the delay event periods to judge the concurrency effect.
Pure concurrency is when both events start on the same day and each have its own impact on the critical path.
The classic example is when the employer cannot give access to the site and the contractor cannot find a piling sub contractor.
Concurrency depends on who solved the problem first and who's delay lasted longest.
It gets more complex when the delay events started on different days and affected the critical path by different routes but the same principle applies - which delay event started first and which caused the most delay.
If the contractor caused the most delay then he pays LAD's for the extra time.
If the Employer caused the most delay then he pays costs for the extra time.
Member for
24 yearsHi Bo,If I was the Arbitrator
Hi Bo,
If I was the Arbitrator (just my own opinion)
Case 1 - If it is between Owner (A) and Contractor (B), I will penalised the owner for the amount of delay he caused less the deliverate delays caused by the Contractor.
Case 2 - If Case is between 2 Contractors, I will calculate impact of delay individually and allocate delay proportionately on a shared basis. Deliverate delays is very difficult to prove and if the other party can prove it, then the party concern should be liable for the amount of delay.
Best regards,
Daniel
Member for
19 years 8 monthsAgain Mike, thanks for the
Again Mike, thanks for the answer. Will now read up on concurrent and pacing delays.
Best regards,
Bo
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Bo I don't want to spoil
Hi Bo
I don't want to spoil your party but the two methods of delay analysis you mention - As Built v As Planned and Collapsed as Built do not produce results that can demonstrate concurrency.
I think this is the main cause of your dilemma.
It has to be cause and effect on the critical path by individual events - Time Impact Analysis as define in the SCL protocol.
As for when there are more than two parties involved that just adds another layer of complication but the same rules apply.
Which delay event lasted longer AND caused further delay and that is where you need a Time Impact Analysis for each event.
As for if one party deliberately delayed his activities then that is a seperate delay event in itself.
Sorry if I can't be more pro active.
I recently had to advise in Arbitration on concurrency in an As Built v As Planned analysis and the best I could do was to share out the delay event durations as a percentage to each party that caused the delay and then apply that percentage to the overal delay period.
Thus allocating blame pro rata to the delay caused - complete nonsense of course but it worked as a broad demonstration.
Even this would be difficult if there are more than two parties to share the blame.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
19 years 8 monthsHi Mike Thanks for your
Hi Mike
Thanks for your response.
All the delay analysis have been done (as planned vs. as built with good records, collapsed as-built) so all delays, events, cause and effect and everything has been established and can be proven by records, misc. MoM, site diaries, photograps, casting logs, etc.
Party A and B doesn't necessarily have to be Employer and Contractor. Can also be 2 contractors on same project working for same employer, 2 joint venture partners, 2 sub-contractors under Main Contractor, etc.
No matter what - and I know there is no right answer when it comes to delay analysis - but what is your gut feeling or "simple but with reservations"-answer to the raised question with the 100 and 70 days and so on, assuming that everything has been established and both party A and B is agreeing that this is how the situation is. And secondly (see original question) does the answer change if party B had deliberately delayed part (50 days out of 70) of his activities?
Best regards,
Bo
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Bo Concurrency rules are
Hi Bo
Concurrency rules are relatively simple to understand but fiendishly complex to apply.
First you have to demonstrate direct cause and effect of each event to show the period of delay generated and then you have to look at all the delay event periods to judge the concurrency effect.
Pure concurrency is when both events start on the same day and each have its own impact on the critical path.
The classic example is when the employer cannot give access to the site and the contractor cannot find a piling sub contractor.
Concurrency depends on who solved the problem first and who's delay lasted longest.
It gets more complex when the delay events started on different days and affected the critical path by different routes but the same principle applies - which delay event started first and which caused the most delay.
If the contractor caused the most delay then he pays LAD's for the extra time.
If the Employer caused the most delay then he pays costs for the extra time.
All of this is explained in detail in
www.planningacademy.org
Basic pro
Principles of delay analysis.
Best regards
Mike Testro