Construction Delays and Other Claims - Construction Project Scheduling and Control - page 359

occur during the same period as another delay, but a concurrent delay may also include
any delay that could have contributed to the overall project's delay, whether or not
the delay overlaps with another (Callahan, Quackenbush, and Rowings, 1992). For
example, the owner may have caused a 1-month delay, but the contractor may claim
that the delay pushed the start of the schedule to the rainy season, which caused an
additional delay. A delay of only 1 day by the A/E in reviewing and approving the shop
drawing may cause the cancellation of the placement of concrete to a suspended slab.
The contractor may not be able to reschedule the concrete delivery for another week
or so. Concurrent delay may also involve two or more factors that happen at the same
time, and it may be very difficult for the investigator to isolate the impact of each one.
This is particularly important when one of the factors is the fault of the contractor and
the other is not (e.g., if the materials delivery was delayed because of the contractor's
negligence and severe weather happened concurrently). A contractor may be late due
to his or her own fault, but when a change order comes from the owner, the contractor
tries to hide its delay in the change order time-extension claim. The investigator must
try to verify the effect of one factor at a time. This works theoretically by isolating other
factors, which may be very difficult, if not impossible. This is why CPM schedules are
so important. The claimant usually provides at least two CPM schedules: one without
the impact of the change and one with the impact, in a bid to prove that the alleged
change caused the claimed delay. The investigator, on the other hand, may develop
several CPM schedules, each representing one factor isolated from other factors in
order to show how much exactly of the alleged delay, if any, can be attributed to
causes the contractor is claiming.
METHODS OF SCHEDULE ANALYSIS
There are many methods that have been employed to demonstrate the impact of delays
upon a project. Most involve sophisticated evaluation of schedules (Bramble and Calla-
han, 2014, chapter 11). 21
As-built schedule
As the name implies, the as-built schedule should reflect what actually happened in
the field. Activities are plotted by their real start and real finish dates, disregarding any
logic (as-built schedules may not have logic ties). It may also contain a real budget
and actual resources numbers. Investigators usually develop the as-built schedule from
project records, such as daily logs, diaries, project correspondence, and the like. It
may require a considerable effort to develop the as-built schedule, and there may be
some gaps left in the progress information to be filled in with the help of the project
manager's recollection and the investigator's judgment. Again, documentation is very
valuable in retrieving information that helps develop the case for proving or disproving
a delay claim.
21 See AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, Forensic Schedule Analysis (June 25, 2007).