I am analyzing a delay claim submitted by a contractor to an Owner. They are using a "But For Baseline" schedule as the basis to measure delay.
The Baseline schedule included closeout activities (60 days) following construction completion to Final Acceptance. The contractor claims the actual duration was only 8 days to complete the closeout activities.
They then revise the Baseline schedule to reduce the closeout duration from 60 days to 8 days. They then measure delays to the as-built schedule.
By using the Buf For Baseline they are increasing the amount of delay claimed by 52 days.
Anyone have experience with this type of methodology? What flaws can we point out with this type of analysis.
Hi Joseph - Welcome to Planning Planet
The usual method of As Built But For or Collapsed As Built does not require a baseline programme at all.
I have never heard of a But For Baseline method but that does not mean that it is an invalid method just because no one has written a book about it.
The main issue is that the baseline programme presumably starts and finshes on the contract dates showing the overall duraion and this cannot be reduced by either party.
Even if the contractor's baseline shows completion before the contract end date then he cannot complain if he is delayed - this is known as "Loss of Opportunity".
So any delay claims up to the contract completion date have no validity.
Likewise the employer cannot deduct damages until after the end date is passed.
As a side issue I cannot see how reducing the baseline will assist in increasing the delay entitlement.
I hope this helps
Best regards
Mike Testro
PS. I would be interested to see how this method is put together - please send a private message properly redacted and I will review it for you.