Disruption and delay seems to be of major importance in today’s construction world. Market pressure requires contractors not only to accept projects with insufficient profit margin but often requires them to price incomplete tenders with a lump sum price and complete the projects in the shortest possible period. For several different reasons this often leads to delays and disruptions caused by either party. If such disruptions or delays occur, the methodology of analyzing it is of major importance. The simple reason behind this is the desire to find an approach accepted in arbitration and litigation.
I have done some research and compared a number of cases from the last 2 decades in order to identify a methodology that is accepted by the courts and arbitrators. The only common denominator I could identify was that whatever methodology is used, it must be based on facts and common sense. It does not seem that there is a generally acceptable format or methodology recommended for a delay analysis. The below table shows the outcome of the research project.
|Case||Time Impact Analysis||Collapsed As-Built||As-Built Critical Path||As-Planned v As-Built||Impacted As-Planned||Common Sense Analysis|
|McAlpine v McDermott||X||X|
|John Baker v London Portman Hotel||X||X|
|Balfour Beatty v Lambeth||X||X|
|Skanska v Egger||X|
|Mirant v Ove Arup||X||X|
|London Underground v Citylink||X|
|City Inn v Shepherd||X||X|
|Walter Lilly v Mackay||X|
If you are interested in reading the full paper, just drop us an email via our contact page. Please fill „Delay analysis method“ into the subject line.