Conccurent delay / Controlling vs non controlling delay

just would like to know that ..what baout TF available ...would that not gonna help if the delays for NSC was with in the TF ....or how many days beyond the TF...

Is this a valid point to argue ???

I believe Contractual Constraints per-se cannot be defined as Artificial. But sometimes Contractors do manipulate the Schedule. This usually can be detected with the use of file comparison software such as Digger for P3.



Please see:

http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/rasubmit.htm

Management of CPM Schedule Submission

Ron Winter

October 30, 1997

"Much less well known is the third factor, constraints. A Scheduler can override all other duration and logical relationships by specifying various constraint requirements toward an activity. He or she can artificially reduce total float, create an invisible delay, or even have the activity just expand to take all available time. This will never show up on a plot and is only found in a Constraint Listing."



Schedule analysis is not just applying a procedure on the files submitted by the Contractor you must first validate them. Sometimes out-of-sequence events must be resolved in order to keep true schedule logic.



Neil approach is what we are required to do when delay spans over a single update period. This allows for the Contractor to submit his claim in steps, before the impact finishes. This keeps the Owner aware when something he is doing is delaying the job and that he better take corrective action.



May I suggest you share the files with Neil, sometimes without looking how the critical path is moving it is impossible to figure it out. I use SureTrak and although it can work P3 Concentric files it is not 100% equivalent, if SureTrak is your software then I would be willing to help.



This is as far as I can go, in order not to unnecessarily take your time I am calling me out.



Wish you Good Luck, I have no doubt at PP you will figure it out.

Moe,



I was advising a contemporary TIA, which looks at particular points in time (12-Jun-08, and perhaps monthly thereafter through to 24-Sep-08 - depending upon what records you have) so as to determine Contractor’s contemporary and progressive delay to forecast completion of the podium. It could be defined as a ’Window Analysis’, but in this case it is limited to a small duration and is concerned with a particular task (podium construction).



Personally I’d refer to it simply as a contemporary TIA and I’d suggest that you don’t need to source the AACEI practice as it will address full on ’window analysis’, which is a lot more arduous.



Based upon the Contractor’s updated progress for podium construction as per 31-Aug-08 and 30-Sep-08 what was the critical date for Client nomination of SC?



While your delay and the Contractor’s delay appear concurrent at first glance, the contemporary assessment may demonstrate that your delay is not critical but rather it is simply absorbing float that becomes available as a result of the Contractor’s delay. As such I would consider no entitlment for EOT. However, if on the 12-Jun-08 you advised that nomination was to be deferred until 24-Sep-08 then the situation would be different and I would consider it more likely that an entitlement to EOT existed.

Mohamed



For a TIA to be valid all prior delaying events awarded by the Owner must have been included , this to reflect true schedule just before impact, are they?





During the regular updates did the Activity was ever part of the Critical Path or Longest Path? If so when? This without any "artificial" constraint. If not I would suspect something is wrong within the application of the method.



I will express again that if TIA is specified on a Contract the same specifications usually establish a time limit for the contractor to submit its TIA, by not doing so he waives his right for any claim.



AACE International Recommended Practice No. 52R-06



"At some point, delay in preparation and/or approval of a TIA so diminishes the value of the analysis that the inherent inaccuracies of a TIA invalidates the use of this simple procedure and calls for a more thorough retrospective, forensic analysis"



Sometimes it is impossible to understand the issues without having acces to the CPM files. I use Suretrak not P3, although Suretrak can generate P3 files they are not 100% equivalent. Probably you should get assistance from someone who uses your software if it is acceptable to you to send him a copy of the files plus a very detailed narrative.

Moe,



As per previous responses, I would question why you want to undertake TIA for 12-Jun-08 for your delay as at that date you did not know the extent of your delay.



On 12-Jun-08 you knew that you could delay nomination as a result of Contractor’s delay - above you indicate that at 12-Jun-08 this delay was of the order of 18 days (i.e completion delayed to forecast date of 18-Jun-09). You can argue that you made decision to delay as based upon contemporary knowledge of Contractor’s delay - presumably this is presented by updated programme in the monthly report for May-08 (you need contemporary evidence of delay). On this basis I do not consider that your delay would yield entitlement to EOT.



You then need to demonstrate by reference to contemporary records that as time progressed through June, July, August to 24-Sep-09 the Contractor’s delay extended, remained critical and thus afforded you further opportunity to delay your nomination (it appears a big extension of the delay from the 16 days cited at 12-Jun-09). I’d suggest that contemporary demonstration would be best achieved via reference to the Contractor’s monthly updated programmes.



You advise that podium was completed Mar-09, but what was the critical planned completion date and/ or access date for the nominated SC?



I’d struggle to agree with your 16 days assessment without considering further info i.e. was the event notified, contract conditions, how did the delay evolve...?



Good luck



I’d consider the Contractor’s TIA to be oversimplified as it ignores contemporary progress relative to the event.

Mohammed



Remember it is a dynamic issue. Maybe if you delay the actual nomination one month it is not a delay event, if two months not yet, but if 10 years then it most probably becomes a delay event. If nomination is a delay event, then start of delay should fall somewhere between as planned and actual nomination as long as it did not interfered with his right to finish early (if his right).



If the contract does not call for a specific method for delay analysis then you cannot force the contractor to use TIA. But you can question the validity of his methods.



The following reference might help you support your objection to the Foresight Method he is using.



http://www.cpmiteam.com/AssessingDelays.html



You can prepare yourself a TIA or if find it appropriate, you can use a method better suited to this purpose like a Windows Analysis. I believe under any of the two you should be able to prove that the suspected delay event is not a delay event. Anyway the burden of proof rests on the Contractor unless by not submitting his Claim in due time he already waived his right.



I do not use the Windows Analysis method as in my neighborhood TIA is an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) almost always specified within the CPM Schedule Specifications. We believe it to be a good compromise to settle on time the issues on Delay. I can only be of some help if within our definition of TIA.



Nobody said it was going to be easy.



Good Luck.

Hi Mohammed



Its not just concurrency - it is also about pacing.



This is where a contractors delay creates float that removes the urgency from an employers decision.



I will look at the subject in greater detail tomorrow.



Best regards



Mike Testro

What if you run your TIA for the 24-sep-08 the actual nomination date and compare Job Early Finish Date with the analysis for an updated schedule just before the nomination release? Do the predicted Job Early finish dates differ? What if you run your TIA for the next regular schedule update date after the 24-sep-08? Maybe the outcome "Delay as difference between the expected job finish dates" still holds and therefore it is not sensitive to a very specific date.



Sometimes the only way to find the specific date the event became a Delay Event is by trial and error, especially when it spans several schedule update periods. Sometimes you will discover it was never a delaying event. It seems to me this is the case.



Prospective methods allow the contractor to make delay claims even when the delay event has not finished. In occasions it is appropriate to apply TIA in discrete periods.



Forget about the negative float it is just a definition for backward schedule computations, it does not affect early dates, it does not affect expected job finish dates; it is a matter of preference. At times I find it convenient to toggle off the constraint(s) that creates negative float. Then for the reports I toggle it back if contractually required.



For our understanding it would be in order to make sure we are using the same definition of TIA.



Mine, usually stripped down to its bare bones;



1. Update schedule just prior to Delay Event, this give you a projection of expected job finish date before the event.

2. Add delay event and run an update, this gives you a projection of expected job finish date after the event.

3. Compute Delay as difference between the expected job finish dates.



Please refer to the following link: http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/Time_Impact_Analysis.pdf

Mohamed



I believe you are absolutely right. Schedules are dynamic and so do float. Looking back to the Original Schedule Baseline, if you refer to the "As Planned" or any other Baseline not equal to the updated schedule just before the impact event would make the analysis a Foresight Method. A method not generally favored because it ignores the as-built history of the project; it produces theoretical results; it does not measure the effect of delay on actual performance; and it assumes that the as-planned schedule does not change.



TIA usually identifies controlling events getting out of the analysis the concurrency issue unless you have several critical paths occurring at the same time.



As long as you did not delayed the true schedule at time of impact you are on the safe side.



It is the Contractor who is responsible to warn others in a reasonable time of any delaying events he foresee, the Owner is in no way responsible to do so, it is the Contractor’s Schedule. Even when his claim is valid he might waive his right by not doing so, yes documentation matters, in this particular case his documentation.



Cordially,



Rafael Davila

Dear Mohamed,



It will boil down to documentation.



The Contractor wants to report 101 days delay with nominating the Landscape Subcontractor, hence overall delay of the landscape works by a similar amount. Seems true. But what is the effect on the remain works of the Contractor? Are they expecting time and money delays because of the landscape contractor? This is not clear up to now.



When you noticed the delay in the structural activity, you should have notified the Engineer with the necessity to update the Program of Works to represent the actual progress at site. It seems that you will have enough reporting from the Monthly and weekly report to support this argument.



When a delaying event takes place, the Contractor should notify the Engineer within 28 days from occurance, as per FIDIC 1999. Kindly check what your Conditions of Contract allows.



When you are working on projects this size, it is better to have a notification form for the start and end of each activity. In the future, when a similar event occurs, you will issue a notification to the client stating the delay and asses the subsequent delays that might happen.



With kind regards,



Samer