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.