- Problem Definition.
As a part from Field Development Program (FDP) it recommends introducing to upgrade the oil shipping facility. In this project two Oil transfer pumps to be installed in B station to increase the shipping capacity from 20,000 ppd to 50,000 ppd. In the below table a summary of project activities:
Table 1 Project activities summary
As this project get completed a Construction Delays Analysis to be performed to make sure the project team learns from what transpired. Get a true evaluation of the project results by the end user (operation team), other stakeholders, including project team members. The as-planned of this project (in bar chart format for clarity) is 53 days as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 As-planned schedule.
- Identify the Feasible Alternative.
The objective of delay analysis is to calculate the project delay and work backwards to try to identify how much of it is attributable to each party (contractor, owner, or neither) so that time and/or cost compensation can be decided. Questions that need to be answered here often include:
- What was supposed to happen?
- What did actually happen?
- What were the variances?
- How did they affect the project schedule?
- Development of the Outcome for Alternative.
The project started as scheduled but progress was affected by three main types of delay events:
a. Events for which the contractor assumes the risks of costs and the time consequences involved, which are often categorised as “Nonexcusable Noncompensable” delays (NN)
b. events for which the contractor is entitled to both time extensions and recovery of extra cost consequential upon the delay [“Excusable Compensable” delays (EC)]; and finally.
c.Those events for which no party has control over or bears the risks involved, (e.g., acts of God and strikes), which are often termed as“Excusable Non-compensable” (EN) delays.
The as-built schedule, which includes all delays that occurred during construction of the project, had total project duration of 83 days.
Figure 2 As-built schedule.
- Selection of Criteria.
To distinguish between the various delays, EC delays are indicated in dark horizontal strips and NN delays in dark diagonal strips. Apart from the delays, there were also changes in the planned sequence between some of the activities.
- Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.
Table 2 Delays events that affected the project.
- Selection of the Preferred Alternative.
As-Planned vs. As-Built: under this method, all delaying events (EC, EN and NN delays) encountered on the project are depicted on the as-built schedule. The difference between the as-planned and as-built completion dates is the amount of time for which the claimant will request for compensation. The critical path is determined once in the as-planned and again in the as-built schedule. This technique and the net impact technique utilizing bar chart are similar in that they all show the net effect of all claimed delays. The following illustrates the allocation of delay responsibility betweenthe owner and the contractor for the sample project.
Sum of contractor-caused delays (NN) = ΣNNi = 5+1+3+3+1 = 13 days
Sum of owner-caused delays (EC) = ΣECi = 2+2+2+3+2+2+4 = 17 days
From the above, the assumption is that concurrent delay due to both parties is 13 days Therefore, net project delays for which the owner is responsible = 17 − 13 = 4 days.
The net total project delay = 83 − 53 = 30 days, the balance is the contractor responsibility, which is 30 − 4 = 26 days.
- Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.
The limitations of this methodology are:
- It does not scrutinize delay types and this makes it easy for it to be manipulated and distorted to reflect either the position of the claimant or the defendant.
- It ignores the dynamic nature of the critical path and any changes in schedule logic.
- No attempt is made to determine the individual impact of each delay on the project completion. All delays, including delays on non-critical path, were summed up and their net effect calculated.
1. Ng, S.T.; Skitmore, M.; Deng, M.Z.M.; Nadeem, A. Improving existing delay analysis techniques for the establishment of delay liabilities. Constr. Innov. 2004, 4, 3–17.
2. Society of Construction Law (SCL). Protocol for Determining Extensions of Time and Compensations for Delay and Disruption; SCL: Burbage, UK, 2002.
3. Nuhu Braimah, Construction Delay Analysis Techniques A Review of Application Issues and Improvement Needs, buildingsJournal,2013.