Tag Archives: concurrent delay

Charles Choyce, Forensic Schedule and Delay Analysis

Practical Considerations in Analyzing Concurrent Delays

Concurrent Delay Analysis: Part 5

By: Charles Choyce

While the analytical methods of determining concurrent delay are important, a contractor should prepare contemporaneous updates during the course of the project that correctly and accurately reflect delay events as they occur. Similarly, in its review of contemporaneous updates, an owner should analyze any logic changes, insertion of delay events, and the linking of those events to ensure that they accurately reflect the events that occurred, and communicate with the contractor on these issues. Small adjustments in the schedule can result in significant changes in the delay calculations that may make a delay event compensable, concurrent, or inexcusable. Continue reading Practical Considerations in Analyzing Concurrent Delays →

Charles Choyce, Forensic Schedule and Delay Analysis

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) →

Charles Choyce, Forensic Schedule and Delay Analysis

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) →