Challenges in Determining Concurrent Delay (Part 2)

Concurrent Delay Analysis: Part 4

By: Charles Choyce

In the previous post, I discussed the application of the “longest path theory,” which looks at the critical path in order to determine the existence of concurrent delay. This is not the only method used to address the concurrent delay issues. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI) Recommended Practice also discusses the “but for” test or “zero float school” for analyzing concurrent delay.

Under the “but for” test, in our earlier example regarding the steel design delay, the owner might argue that but for the design delay, the contractor would have been 20 days late on the foundations, and thus that 20-day delay should be regarded as concurrent. Generally, the contractor who argues that his delay was not concurrent must establish that he would have completed on time in the absence of the critical path delay caused by the other party. In our example regarding the foundations and the owner steel delay, to rebut the contention of the but for argument, the contractor can contend that had there been no steel design delay, he could have added resources or done other management adjustments to avoid the 20-day delay on the foundations, but since the delay caused by the steel design was so great, it would have been futile to do so.

Continue reading Challenges in Determining Concurrent Delay (Part 2)

Challenges in Determining Concurrent Delay (Part 1)

Concurrent Delay Analysis: Part 3

By: Charles Choyce

In parts 1 and 2, I discussed the definitions and general standards set forth by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI) Recommended Practice to determine concurrent delay. In this post, I will illustrate challenges confronted in attempting to apply those concepts, which are by their nature very fact intensive.

Let us use as an example a typical office building with concrete foundations and a structural steel superstructure. The baseline schedule provided that the critical path ran through the construction of the foundations, followed by the start of structural steel erection. However, due to delays in resolving structural steel design problems by the owner’s structural engineer, the project’s critical path shifted to the structural steel design. The delay in resolving the design issues delayed by 100 days the fabrication of steel necessary to commence the erection, resulting in the project completion being delayed by 100 days. At the same time, the contractor completed the foundations 20 days later than planned.

Continue reading Challenges in Determining Concurrent Delay (Part 1)

Analyzing Concurrent Delay

Concurrent Delay Analysis: Part 2

By: Charles Choyce

As discussed in post 1, “Concurrent Delay Defined,” the courts have recognized the fact-specific nature in determining concurrent delay. However, the following general guideline has been established in numerous court decisions and published recommended practices where concurrent delay is an issue: For a delay to be concurrent, it must affect the critical path.[1]  Delay events that merely consume float, or slack time, on non-critical activities are not concurrent delays.

Continue reading Analyzing Concurrent Delay

%d bloggers like this: