GENERIC METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING DELAY CLAIMS

By Saied Kartam1

ABSTRACT: It is common for a construction project to encounter delays. There are several reasons that can
contribute to delaying a project. Analyzing the various causes that contribute to a project’s delay is an important
task to resolving it. Determining, in a scientific manner, the impact, timing, and the contributing effect of each
of those causes to the overall delay should assist in helping the parties settle the delay without litigation. Project
participants are becoming more aware of the high costs and risks associated with delay claims and their litigation.
Thus, the construction industry needs to develop methodologies and techniques to prevent and more efficiently
resolve delay claims. While many practitioners have been following some kind of a methodology for analyzing
delay claims, a written exposition of such a methodology is not widely available in the literature. Thus, this
paper presents a written exposition of a generic methodology for analyzing delay claims. This methodology has
been developed and successfully used, by the writer, in various projects to resolve delay claims. The developed
methodology will be illustrated through its application in those projects. Moreover, this methodology shows that
while there are several techniques for analyzing delay claims, very few of these can be considered adequate.
The use of such an adequate technique is a key in obtaining a fair allocation of the delay responsibility. This
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

paper’s methodology utilizes one of these few adequate techniques for analyzing delay claims.

INTRODUCTION paper’s methodology utilizes one of the few adequate tech-

niques for analyzing delay claims.
Finishing a project on schedule is a difficult task to accom- While many practitioners have been following some kind
plish in the uncertain, complex, multiparty, and dynamic en- of a methodology for analyzing delay claims, a written ex-
vironment of construction. Thus, it has been common for a position of such a methodology is not widely available in the
construction project to encounter delays. Alkass et al. (1995) literature. Thus, this paper presents a written exposition of a
states that ‘‘delays on a construction site are normally inevi- generic methodology for analyzing delay claims. This meth-
table and, as a result, many claims arise with few of them odology has been developed and applied successfully, by the
ending up in litigation.‘‘ writer, in various case studies to analyze and evaluate delay
There are several reasons that can contribute to delaying a claims. The developed methodology will be illustrated through
project. Analyzing the various causes that contribute to the its application in those projects.
delay encountered in a construction project is an important
task to resolving this delay problem. Determining, in a sci-
entific manner, the impact, timing, and contributing effect of PROJECT DELAYS’ CLASSIFICATION (PDC)
each cause to the overall delay should assist the parties to Project delays can be classified according to their origin and
clearly identify the responsibility of each. This scientific iden- timing as well as their compensability as shown in Fig. 1. The
tification of each party’s responsibility to the delay should be following will describe the various types of delays included in
a good foundation to a successful negotiation effort. It should each of those categories.
result in the parties being able to settle this delay. If the parties
were not able to settle through negotiations, then the claim Delays Classified by Their Origin
case will go to court, where the scientific methodology for
analyzing the delay claim, presented in this paper, will be cru- Project delays can be generated by various causes. Some of
cial for either party to prove its case. those causes are the owner’s responsibility, which results in
Many project participants, if not all, are becoming increas- owner caused delays (OCD); some are the contractor’s re-
ingly aware of the high costs and risks associated with delay sponsibility, which results in contractor caused delays (CCD),
claims and their litigation. ‘‘Delays are the most common and and some are neither party’s sole responsibility, which results
costly problem encountered on construction projects’’ (Alkass in the third party caused delays (TPCD).
et al. 1995). Thus, the construction industry needs to develop
methodologies and techniques to prevent and more efficiently Delays Classified by Their Timing
resolve delay claims. Schumacher (1996) states that ‘‘Most
delay claims are complicated and there is usually a dearth of The timing of a delay is crucial to determining whether the
relevant, useful, and contemporaneous documentation. As a delay is compensable or not. Delays can either occur concur-
result, good articles on the subject also emphasize the high rently or nonconcurrently. Concurrent delays (CD) are those
cost and substantial risk associated with litigating delay delays that occur when more than one delay that is caused by
claims. Most, however, do not address the more troubling as- different parties coincide. For example, CD occurs when OCD
pects of lingering disputes about the responsibility for project and CCD coincide in time. On the other hand, nonconcurrent
delays.’’ This paper shows that while several techniques exist delays (NCD) are those delays that occur alone at the time in
for analyzing delay claims, very few of these can be consid- which the delay took place.
ered adequate. The use of such an adequate technique is a key
in obtaining a fair allocation of the delay responsibility. This Delays Classified by Their Compensability
1
Mgr. of Proj. Controls, CH2M HILL Inc., Santa Ana, CA 92707. Excusable Delays (ED)
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2000. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of ED are those delays in which the contractor is excused from
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on May 9, 1997. This paper is part of the Journal
their sole responsibility. Thus, the owner grants a time exten-
of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125, No. 6, No- sion equal to the magnitude of the delay impact for the con-
vember/December, 1999. qASCE, ISSN 0733-9634/99/0006-0409– tractor to perform the work. These delays can be categorized
0419/$8.00 1 $.50 per page. Paper No. 15726. into two types in terms of their compensability.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999 / 409

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.

 FIG. 1. PDC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

• Excusable compensable delays (ECD): ECD are those de- • The name and signature of the person filling out the form.
lays in which the contractor is excused from the respon- • The date.
sibility of the delay and is compensated for its impact. • The location.
OCD represents this category of ECD. • The type of activities being performed, the time spent on
• Excusable noncompensable delays (ENCD): ENCD are each activity, and the amount of work performed in each
those delays in which the contractor is excused in terms activity.
of the time impact, but is not compensated for the cost of • A listing of all resources utilized in performing the work
the delay impact. This category includes CD and TPCD. and their utilization status; i.e., what activities each re-
source was working on and whether the resource was idle,
Nonexcusable Delays (NED) busy, or broken down.
NED are those delays in which the contractor is not excused Schedule Updates
and is thus not compensated. This category includes CCD, in
which the contractor is the sole responsible party for the delay. Periodically updating the original schedule is critical to doc-
umenting the changes that take place in that specific time
DELAYS’ IMPACT CLASSIFICATION frame. Keeping an updated current schedule rather than the
static original schedule is key in making the schedule a useful
The impact of delays can be classified into two categories. tool for both planning and analyzing delay claims.
One is direct impact while the other is indirect or ripple im-
pact. The direct impact of a delay is the exact number of time Submittal Log
units that the delay issue affected the project operations di-
rectly. The indirect impact of a delay is a consequential ripple The submittal log shows all submittals made on the job. For
effect that is claimed to be an indirect result of the delay issue. each submittal, it tracks the date it was submitted, the date it
Unlike the direct impact of a delay, the ripple effect of a delay was reviewed, the date it got returned, and the action taken.
is usually difficult to quantify.
Request for Information (RFI) Log
GENERIC METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING DELAY
CLAIMS This document is similar to the submittal log, but instead
of submittals, it deals with the RFI.
The generic methodology presented in this paper, to analyze
delay claims, consists of 14 consecutive steps (Fig. 2). Contract Document Clarification (CDC) Log

Keep Good Documentation Throughout Project Life The CDC log shows the dates a CDC was submitted, re-
Cycle ceived, responded to, and sent back. It also highlights any
outstanding CDC that is late and it can also provide a follow-
Keeping project information in an accurate, organized, and up list of items that need to be expedited.
timely manner throughout the project life cycle is a key factor
in preparing, analyzing, and resolving claims. These docu- Potential Cost/Schedule (PCS) Incidents Log
ments record facts that were encountered in various aspects of
the work. The PCS incidents log was developed by the writer as an
The following is a brief presentation of key documents that instrument to keep track of each incident that occurred on the
are utilized in analyzing delay claims. project that might, or might have, affected the project cost and/
or schedule. The key benefit of such a document is to give a
Daily Inspection Reports (DIR) warning signal of such incidents, as they occur, to the man-
agement. Thus, it highlights, in a timely manner, issues that
DIR documents the work accomplished on a daily basis by management can avoid, if possible, or at the very least, re-
the person inspecting the work. They are considered legal doc- ducing cost and/or schedule impacts.
uments that report facts on the jobsite and are thus crucial for The PCS report is filled out by the inspector in the field or
analyzing delay claims. by the engineer when encountering an incident that can affect
Important information that should be documented in the cost and/or the schedule. The engineer will input these reports
DIR include the following: into the computer and follow up on what actions need to be
410 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

FIG. 2. Generic Methodology for Analyzing Delay Claims

taken to reduce the impact of such incidents. Such documents contractor’s delay claim, if it has been submitted. At this stage,
can be a great learning value for a firm’s future projects. Also, the analyst should not attempt to analyze any of the issues
conducting periodic meetings among the parties to discuss because such an analysis would be premature and biased. In-
these PCS incidents can result in minimizing their impact and stead, the analyst should just read the contractor’s position
resolving them in a timely manner. toward the project delay. This will allow the analyst to under-
stand what the issues are that the contractor is claiming de-
Contractor Caused Disruption (CCD) Report layed the project, the time allocated to each, and the contrac-
tor’s reasoning behind them.
The CCD report was developed, by the writer, as an instru- Such an understanding of the contractor’s position should
ment to keep track of all the incidents that disrupted the work focus the analyst on the critical issues that caused the delays
as a result of the contractor performance. CCD incidents in- from the contractor’s point of view. It is important to note here
clude equipment breakdown, rework, resources shortage, and that the contractor will usually present problems caused by the
personnel conflicts. Keeping track of these incidents will de- owner or other parties, but will rarely present his/her own
velop a historical indicator for the quality of the contractor problems. The analyst should be aware of this issue and thus
operations. It can later serve to show the contractor’s produc- attempt to identify reasons for delays other than those noted
tivity, planning quality, and resources quality and utilization. in the contractor’s delay claim.
Change Order Index
Analyze Contractor’s Original CPM Schedule
The change order index will list all of the change orders
made on the project with their amount and status. It will show, To analyze any delay claim, it will be imperative to start by
for each change order, the cost and time requested versus the analyzing the contractor’s original plan. The purpose of this
cost and time granted. analysis is to determine the appropriateness of the original plan
for delay analysis. It is necessary that the original plan be
Claims’ Log realistic and reasonable for it to be appropriately used for a
schedule delay’s impact analysis. It should not contain errors
Like the change order index, the claims’ log will list all of in logic or in the estimated duration of activities. It is impor-
the claims made on the project along with their status. It will tant to note here that these errors can be made intentionally
show the amount of the claim, the time extension requested, or unintentionally by the contractor. The intentional errors are
if any, and the file number where to allocate all of the infor- made to obtain an advantage for potential delay claim pur-
mation related to this claim issue. Usually, a claim will be poses.
proceeded by a history of correspondence that took place and There are various issues that the analyst should examine to
were unsuccessfully resolved. It is important to keep all of this determine the appropriateness of the original schedule for de-
information on file. lay analysis. The following are the major items to be exam-
ined.
Get Acquainted with All Project Documents
The first task a delay claim analyst should perform, partic- Level of Detail in Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
ularly if he/she is new to the project, is getting acquainted
with all of the project documents. Reading and understanding The analyst should examine the level of detail provided in
the history of what happened, when it happened, and how it the contractor original CPM schedule. The level of detail
happened is crucial basic information that the analyst should should be sufficient to allow the analyst to allocate major ac-
start with. These documents represent facts that the analyst tivities with their information. This detail will help conduct
should be able to obtain. impact analysis on any of these activities.

Understand Contractor Submitted Claim Logic Utilized to Interrelate Various Activities

After becoming familiar with all of the project documents, The analyst should also examine the interrelationships
it is recommended that the analyst read and understand the among the various activities that constitute the project. A pre-
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999 / 411

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.

 decessor-successor report will indicate these relationships eas- the utilization of these resources and comparing this actual
ier than a graphical network, particularly in large projects utilization with the planned one are important tasks in analyz-
where the number of lines in the network makes reading the ing delay claims.
report difficult. The analyst should be examining whether ap-
propriate logic exists. For example, in a pipeline project, Summarize Actual Resources Utilized
trench excavation should proceed laying pipe, which, in turn,
should proceed trench backfilling. The DIR should be structured to document the resources of
The analyst should examine that the most appropriate log- the contractor and his subcontractors on a daily basis. It should
ical relationships among the activities are being utilized. A also indicate what activities each resource was utilized for and
finish-to-start (FS) is a logical relationship among the activities the condition of each resource; i.e., idle, working, or broken
noted in the above pipeline example. But, if the project is on down. This information can be summarized to develop the
a fast-track basis and the pipeline stretches for a long distance; actual resource’s utilization throughout the project’s life cycle.
i.e., more than 30,000 ft of pipeline, a start-to-start (SS) re-
lationship, among those activities in the above example, will Compare Actual Resources Utilized with Planned Ones
be more appropriate than an FS relationship. The contractor A comparison between the resources that the contractor was
does not necessarily need to finish completely excavating more originally planning to utilize versus what were actually mo-
than 30,000 ft of trench before he can start laying pipe. Sim- bilized to the jobsite can reveal the degree of matching be-
ilarly, laying pipe does not need to be complete before back- tween actual and planned resources. This comparison can be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

filling can take place. Not only does the analyst need to ex- used to calculate the degree of mismatch between planned and
amine the most appropriate logical relationship among the actual production rates. This comparison could explain some
activities, but also, he/she needs to examine the lead-lag fac- of the reasoning for the delay.
tors. For example, a SS of 1 day (SS1) among the previous
activities is not realistic, but an SS7 is. Develop Project’s As-Built Schedule (ABS)
The ABS constitutes the second part of the equation to solve
Planned Production Rate the delay impact problem. The first part of the equation is the
The production rate is a function of two parameters. One is original CPM schedule. Therefore, it is imperative to preserve
the duration of an activity, and the other is the amount of work the facts of what actually took place and when it occurred
accomplished in that activity’s duration. For example, if you throughout the process of developing the ABS. An as-built
are excavating 40,000 ft of trench in 50 working days, the CPM schedule should reflect the actual sequence and duration
production rate utilized is 800 ft/day. The analyst should ex- of the work activities of the particular project (Kallo 1996).
amine the planned production rate for each major activity. This The following are the major steps involved in the ABS de-
examination requires the knowledge of the resources the con- velopment process.
tractor is planning to use. It also requires the knowledge of
the logic utilized among the activities. This analysis should Summarize DIR
indicate whether the planned production rates are realistic or Summarizing the DIR produces the foundation upon which
not. the ABS will be developed. Thus, the accuracy of this sum-
One of the projects, in which the writer applied this meth- mary can make or break the validity of the whole analysis
odology, was to construct 100,000 ft of steel underground wa- process.
ter pipeline. The start date for the contract was May 1994 and The writer has developed a summary form in which the DIR
the end date was September 1995. The contractor submitted a can be summarized. For each activity, the work performed in
schedule showing major pipeline activities; i.e., trench exca- a specific day is summarized in one line in the summary sheet
vation, pipe laying, and trench backfilling, having a start date for that day for that activity. The summarized information
of July 1994 and a completion date of November 1994. The should include the location, weather, and site conditions, and
main advantage for the contractor finishing in November 1994 the amount and type of work. It is important to note here that
was to avoid the rainy season usually encountered in Decem- the summary should be precise and complete. No judgment or
ber–April. interpretations should be summarized if not specifically writ-
Analyzing the contractor’s original schedule showed that the ten.
contractor could not perform what the plan was showing. The There is a separate section for each activity to be summa-
contractor planned a production rate of 1,400 ft/day for each rized. The writer suggests that management make a decision
major pipeline activity and then performing those activities on which activities are important and relevant to the delay
concurrently with an SS1 among them. Given the contractor’s claim and then summarize those only. The level of detail is
available resources, this plan was unrealistic. The contractor, directly related to a cost-benefit trade-off and it is up to man-
in this case, was intentionally showing this plan of finishing agement to make this decision. In general, critical or semi-
before the winter season. The contractor knew that it is un- critical activities are to be summarized. Also, activities that
realistic to complete all major pipeline work before the rainy encountered specific problems through the course of the proj-
season. But the contractor’s strategy behind that plan was to ect should be summarized.
claim any weather-related delays as compensable in case the For example, if the project deals with constructing an un-
contractor’s major operations ran into the rainy season. This derground pipeline to transfer water, the activities that are the
example illustrates how the CPM intended use as a planning most critical and should be summarized include: pipe fabri-
tool has been diminished by its actual use as a delay claim cation and delivery, trench excavation, pipe laying, welding,
tool. trench backfilling, hydrotesting, and installing valves and ap-
purtenances. On the other hand, concrete work, road construc-
Develop and Analyze Project Resources’ Utilization tion, detours, and installing fences are not as important to be
summarized unless specific problems relating to those activi-
Project resources are a key factor in evaluating the perfor- ties were encountered.
mance of a contractor. The resources utilized in a project di- A key summary sheet that was developed by the writer is
rectly relate to the amount of work performed. Determining the delays/problems section. In these summary sheets, all of
412 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

FIG. 3. Sample of Summary Sheets Developed to Report Delays and Problems on Water Pipeline Project

the problems that were encountered throughout the project’s ABS as shown in Fig. 5. This comparison highlights the delay
life cycle will be highlighted. These problems include: clean- impact encountered in each activity as well as in the overall
up after stormy weather, equipment breakdowns, nonconfor- project. It also highlights any deviations between the actual
mance work that needs to be corrected, and rework. A sample and original schedules for the project in terms of start and end
of these summary sheets is shown in Fig. 3. dates, duration, and logic.

Plot DIR Summary Sheets Calculate Actual Production Rates Achieved

Now that the DIR information are summarized in a concise The actual production rates achieved in an activity can be
format, one can plot these summary sheets to develop the calculated by dividing the amount of actual work performed
ABS. Different colors can be used to plot different activities. by the duration consumed for that activity. In some projects,
Also, specific information can be noted on the ABS: such as this process can be straightforward, whereas in others this pro-
the location of work or the amount of work. A sample of the cess may need judgment applied to it. An example of this
ABS developed in a pipeline project is shown in Fig. 4. judgment application is a trench backfilling operation in which
the contractor does not start and finish exact locations in spe-
Develop Various Levels of Detail for ABS cific days. The operation might be overlapping several lifts of
backfill that stretch over a wide range. Thus, a judgment call
The first level of detail for the ABS developed in the pre- should be made of when the majority of the backfill between
vious step is a day-by-day level. Management may need to two different locations took place.
summarize this detail and look at it in terms of other periods, Another issue that affects the calculation process is whether
such as months or quarters of a year. Also, management might to use workdays available in a month or the days worked by
want this to be summarized in the same level of detail that the contractor in that month. In a normal project, the number
exists in the contractor’s original CPM schedule. This is help- of days worked in a month should equal the number of work-
ful in making a comparison between the ABS and the original days available in that month. But, if problems are encountered
CPM schedule with respect to the same time and breakdown in a project and disruptions are caused by any party to the
scale. work flow, the number of days worked will be less than the
number of workdays available in a month. On the other hand,
Analyze Project ABS if the project is proceeding quickly, with minimal disruptions,
and work is continuing throughout the weekends, then the
Analyzing the project ABS is a key step in analyzing delay number of days worked will be more than the number of work
claims. This step involves comparing the actual performance days available in a month.
with the planned one. The comparison can be made in terms
of duration, logic, start and end dates, and production rates.
Compare Actual Production Rates with Original Ones
The following presents the analysis needed in each one of
these issues. This step compares the production rate that the contractor
achieved in reality versus what was originally planned to be
Compare Actual Dates, Duration, and Logic with Original accomplished. Thus, it works as a validating tool for the de-
Ones gree of mismatch between plan and actual productivity. Fig. 6
shows an example of this comparison in one of the projects
Now that the ABS has been developed, the dates, duration, where this methodology was used. The example presents pro-
and logic that were encountered in the contractor’s actual per- duction rates for compacted backfill operations in a pipeline
formance can be compared with the original planned values. construction project. It can be concluded from this figure that
A good tool for presenting this comparison is the CPM sched- the contractor, on average, did not achieve his/her planned
ule. One can superimpose the planned schedule versus the production rate.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999 / 413

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

FIG. 4. Sample of ABS Developed for Water Pipeline Project

The contractor’s inability to achieve the planned production There are various reasons that can cause these disruptions.
can be caused by several reasons. In the above pipeline case Some of these causes are the responsibility of the contractor,
study, the contractor claimed that this inability to achieve his some are caused by the owner, whereas some can be caused
planned productivity was attributed to the continuous interrup- by neither the owner nor the contractor.
tions of his operations by the owner. On the other hand, the From the ABS, a schedule that shows the work disruption
owner claimed that this inability is due to the unrealistic plan periods can be extracted as shown in Fig. 7. The disruption
that the contractor submitted. Also, the owner claimed that the periods are indicated by a reduction in the thickness of the
contractor’s inability was due to his poor quality of perfor- schedule bar for each activity. Management needs to decide
mance in achieving the required compaction. what level of detail they are looking for and thus determine
Fig. 6 clearly shows the actual production rates achieved what activities they are going to analyze. They also have to
using days worked versus work days available in a month. define the amount of time that constitutes a disruption. For
Comparing these two production values, one can find them to example, if they want to consider 1 day as a disruption period,
be approximately equal. This means that the number of days they may then have to invest a great deal of time to discover
worked was close to the number of work days available in the reasoning for each and every single day that the contractor
these months. Thus, it can be concluded that the contractor’s did not or could not work. If management instead decides to
claim of owner-caused disruptions and work stoppage is not consider 1 week as a disruption period, then they may not have
valid. as many disruption periods to analyze, and thus, can focus
The comparison of the actual resources utilized versus what their efforts on the major disruptions that took place.
were planned showed that the contractor utilized fewer re-
sources than what was originally planned. It also showed that
several compaction tests were failing because the contractor Analyze Impact of Specific Issues
was having thick lifts of backfill delivered. These lifts were A construction project usually encounters specific issues that
much thicker than what was specified in the contract. The anal- impact the schedule. Some change orders might have caused,
ysis also found that the contractor utilized equipment that was or the contractor might be claiming that they did cause, delay
unable to apply enough energy to compact these thick lifts impacts. Analyzing these specific issues in detail is a key to
sufficiently and uniformly. finding their impact on the overall schedule. Another issue that
usually results in a delay impact is nature events such as rain-
Identify and Analyze Delay Disruption Periods storms. Analyzing which days qualify to be excusable accord-
Disruptions, which are frequently encountered in a construc- ing to contract specifications is a key in determining the im-
tion project, are those periods where no work took place. pact of this issue.
414 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

FIG. 5. Comparing Actual ABS with Early and Late Originally Planned CPM Schedule

FIG. 6. Productivity Analysis of Compacted Backfill Operations in Water Pipeline Case Study

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999 / 415

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

FIG. 7. As-Built CPM Schedule in Water Pipeline Case Study Showing Major Disruption Periods

Identify and Analyze Concurrent Delays advantages, but overall they all have been criticized for their
inadequacy to result in a fair allocation of the delay respon-
Concurrent delays are defined as those delays when OCD sibility. The use of faulty techniques to analyze delay claims
and CCD coincide in time. Accordingly, they are considered should be discouraged, and an analyst should be aware of the
excusable but noncompensable delays. Thus, it is important to shortcomings of the wrong techniques.
analyze the delays not only in terms of their impact, but also One of the very few techniques that escaped such criticism
in terms of their timing. Plotting the delays on a time scale is the CPAT. This paper’s methodology utilizes this adequate
can make the parties clearly see when each of the delays oc- technique to analyze delay claims.
curred and thus highlight the concurrent versus the individual The CPAT eliminates the shortcomings in the other tech-
responsibility delays. This process is important in calculating niques. It realizes the key drawback in most of the other crit-
the total compensation for the delays encountered. icized analysis techniques. This drawback is that these tech-
Kraiem and Diekmann (1987) developed a technique to an- niques fail to recognize that the as-planned schedule is not a
alyze those concurrent delays. They applied a different code static document. For a schedule to serve as an accurate delay
to these concurrent delays that identifies the type of concur- analysis tool, it must be periodically updated so that it con-
rency. They then adjusted the ABS to reflect those concurrent tinues to reflect the contractor’s as-built progress to-date and
delays and compared it with the adjusted schedule to calculate current as-planned schedule for performing the remaining
the amount of the delay. work. Therefore, the CPAT uses the schedule update for a
period as a basis for analyzing delays encountered in that
Apply Adequate Technique for Analyzing Delay period. Thus, the original planned schedule is used only as
Claims: Contemporaneous Period Analysis the baseline schedule for the initial update period. Subse-
Technique (CPAT) quently, the CPM schedule updates serve the function. The
as-built schedule is used to illustrate the project history and
There are various techniques developed and utilized to an- to validate the accuracy of the schedule updates. This tech-
alyze delay claims. Some of the most commonly used tech- nique identifies the critical path recognized by the project
niques are: what-if evaluations, but-for schedules, collapsed participants at given points in time and presents the critical
as-built analysis, impacted baseline schedules, after-the-fact delays in chronological order as the project unfolds. This
and modified CPM schedule, and dollar-to-time relationship. technique has the main advantage over many of the other
Each of these methods has its individual advantages and dis- techniques in recognizing the concept of float as a resource
416 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

FIG. 8. Graphical Summary of Delay Claim Causes and Time Allocation in Water Pipeline Case Study

to the project. It allows the identification of delays caused ing the resulting completion date in the what-if schedule with
solely by the pace of the project. Practitioners of the contem- the date originally projected in the contractor original CPM
poraneous period analysis have developed ways to account results in the amount of delay impact for the delays encoun-
for excusable, compensable, and inexcusable delays in a way tered (Schumacher 1997).
that sums up the cumulative delay reflected in the most cur- The what-if evaluation technique uses the original CPM
rent CPM schedule update (Schumacher 1997). schedule as its basis for measuring the delay impacts that occur
The application of this technique in a structured and con- at any point in time. The dynamics of construction usually
sistent manner can achieve a timely resolution of delays in- makes the original CPM inadequate as a baseline in any time
stead of waiting until the end of the project to analyze all of period after the start of the project. Thus, the writer suggests
the delays after the fact. But even in that case, the application the use of the CPM schedule updates that are generated as the
of CPAT is more adequate and accurate than the application work progresses as a basis for measuring the delay impact. In
of many of the other techniques. this periodic evaluation method, the status of the work is de-
termined when the delays occurred and an examination of the
delays is done as it would have been done at the time of each
Analyze and Evaluate the Contractor Submitted of those delays.
Claim It is important to note here that a delay issue may cause,
After the analyst has performed all of the previous steps, it impact, or coincide partially or fully with another delay issue.
is time to thoroughly examine the claim submitted by the con- Thus, the interdependencies of the delays among each other
tractor. This claim will have the contractor entitlement, cau- should be analyzed and evaluated. The original CPM and up-
sation, and damages. It is a good idea to summarize the claim dates as well as the ABS are the tools to calculate the schedule
graphically. Fig. 8 shows the summary of the claim submitted path dependency of delay issues. These tools, if developed
in one of the case studies. appropriately, can determine the dependency impact among
It can be seen (Fig. 8), that the claim is broken into two delay issues on the critical path of the project and thus the
major branches. One has two issues: namely, the rain and the overall project completion date.
steel pipe specification changes; whereas the other branch has
four issues. It can be seen that the branch with two issues Summarize Various Analyses to Calculate
contributed 70% of the total delay caused on this project, while Compensations
the rest of the items share only the remaining 30% of the delay.
Management, in this case, should focus their analysis effort on A key step in the analysis of the delay claim is to summarize
the two major issues that are causing 70% of the delay. all of the various analyses that have been conducted. It is im-
This summary process of a delay claim can focus the analyst portant to note the value of getting the overall perspective of
on the individual issues of which impacts need to be analyzed any delay claim. After hearing all of the facts, the parties are
and evaluated. The analyst can conduct a what-if analysis on interested to see the bottom line conclusion of the analysis.
the contractor claim to evaluate the impact of each claimed Putting the analysis of the delay claim together in graphical
delay issue. A what-if scenario represents what the contractor form is a good idea. This graphical representation should show
could have achieved if the delay issues did not occur. This can the various issues and whether the analysis shows it to be
be accomplished by inserting the delays into the contractor’s excusable and/or compensable, or neither. The compensation
planned CPM schedule to create a what-if schedule. Compar- can then be calculated.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999 / 417

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

FIG. 9. Delay Claim Analysis Summary for Water Pipeline Case Study

For example, in the claim case presented in Fig. 8, the anal- presents a road map for management to follow in analyzing
ysis found 130 calendar days (CD) as excusable but noncom- their delay claims. The methodology is clear, easy to use, in-
pensable (ENC), 72 CD as excusable and compensable (EC), expensive, accurate, unbiased, scientific, systematic, and ap-
and the remaining 178 CD were nonexcusable and noncom- plicable for any type of construction. Its power was evident,
pensable (NENC). in the various projects in which it was used, in the speed in
For ENC, neither party would pay any compensation. For which the parties were able to come to an agreement and settle
EC, the owner must pay the contractor for any overhead and their claims.
loss of profit. For NENC, the contractor needs to pay the A key success indicator of this methodology is that in all
owner for liquidated damages. Thus, assembling the numbers of those projects, in which this methodology was used, no
can result in a bottom line settlement compensation figure for courts were necessary to resolve the delay claims. The parties
the delay claim (Fig. 9). were able to come together and look at the analysis, conducted
by the writer, and settle the claim reasonably and fairly, as the
Conduct Effective Meetings to Discuss, Negotiate, results of the analysis showed. It was difficult for a specific
and Settle Claims party to disagree on a certain finding once it was supported
by this methodology; therefore, it was easier to get the parties
Ineffective meetings are a major waste of time in project to agree on a resolution without litigation.
operations (Ritz 1994). A key to settling a delay claim is the One of the projects, in which this methodology was used,
meetings that are conducted to present and discuss the analysis was a $500,000,000 project to construct 140 miles of steel
and then negotiate the compensations. water pipeline, several water treatment plants, pumping sta-
An advantage of this paper’s methodology is that it presents tions, and tanks. There were various contracts with various
facts, not judgments, in a scientific, systematic, clear, and un- time frames. One of these contracts had a delay claim of ap-
biased manner. This is important for having the parties clearly proximately 70% of the contract time with an approximate
realize the facts and decide on a fair settlement. value of 40% of the bid amount. The parties involved in this
Appropriate planning for these meetings is essential. This contract were adversaries and a settlement without litigation
methodology has scientifically utilized the facts of whose re- was not foreseen as being a possibility by the parties involved.
sponsible for what, and it has found the timing of each delay. The writer was then hired as a consultant to analyze this claim
Presenting these findings in a systematic, scientific, unbiased, and the developed methodology was utilized. After the writer
and clear manner is helpful in having everyone understand the presented his analysis and evaluation of the delay claim, ne-
justification of the delay analysis. Helpful tools for a success- gotiation meetings among the owner, contractor, and suppliers
ful meeting are: developing an agenda, having clear transpar- took place, and they were able to settle this large claim without
encies that include graphics, and providing a checklist of what litigation.
to do before, during, and after the meeting.
After the facts have been presented, the parties can comment
and discuss the findings. These discussions, if conducted pro- CONCLUSIONS
fessionally, should lead to negotiating a fair and final settle-
ment for the delay claim. This paper presented a generic methodology that has been
successfully used in several projects to analyze, evaluate, and
settle delay claims. The main advantages of this methodology
BENEFITS GAINED FROM APPLYING DEVELOPED is that it is generic, systematic, scientific, clear, easy to use,
METHODOLOGY inexpensive, accurate, and unbiased. Its power was evident, in
The developed methodology for analyzing delay claims has the various projects in which it was used, in the speed in which
been successfully used in various projects. This methodology the parties were able to come to an agreement and settle their
418 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.

 claim without litigation; thus, saving the parties the cost and 38(5), 35–37.
time that would have otherwise been wasted. Kraiem, Z., and Diekmann, J. (1987). ‘‘Concurrent delays in construction
projects.’’ J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 113(4), 591–602.
Ritz, G. (1994). Total construction project management. McGraw-Hill,
APPENDIX. REFERENCES New York.
Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M., Tribaldos, E., and Harris, F. (1995). ‘‘Computer Schumacher, L. (1996). ‘‘An integrated and proactive approach for avoid-
aided construction delay analysis and claims preparation.’’ Constr. ing delay claims on major capital projects.’’ Cost Engrg., 38(6), 37–
Mgmt. and Economics, 13(4), 335–352. 39.
Kallo, G. (1996). ‘‘The reliability of critical path method (CPM) tech- Schumacher, L. (1997). ‘‘Defusing delay claims.’’ Civ. Engrg. Mag.,
niques in the analysis and evaluation of delay claims.’’ Cost Engrg., 67(3), ASCE, New York, 60–62.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 07/11/15. For personal use only.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1999 / 419

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 1999.125:409-419.