Choosing a Delay Analysis Method in Construction Projects

Whether you need to support a claim or facilitate dispute resolution, delay analysis in construction is an important process. Construction delay claim analysis quantifies and substantiates the impact a delay has on a project. It enables contractors or owners to identify what went wrong in a project timeline, how it affected project progression, and which party is responsible for a claim. 

Carefully selecting a delay analysis method helps to ensure the assessment is the most practical and timely option for a given project. A technique that suits the specific situation will also be better able to stand up to the highest levels of scrutiny.

9 Factors to Consider in Selecting a Delay Analysis Technique 

Several factors must be considered when selecting a delay analysis methodology:

1. Contractual Requirements

What does your contract say about delay or disruption analysis methods? Contracts often contain clauses regarding delays since they are so common in the construction industry.

For example, contracts typically require that delay analysis be based on The Critical Path Method. Some contracts may state which specific analysis method can be used or require the technique to be prospective or retrospective.

Before investing time and effort into a particular delay analysis method, be sure to review your contract.

2. Data Availability 

Consider whether you have the data or records to conduct a particular delay analysis method. This includes considering whether you have a quality baseline schedule or as-built data available. For instance, you will need as-built records to conduct an as-planned vs. as-built analysis, but you won’t need them for an impacted as-planned analysis.

If you need help deciding what method to choose based on data, you can gather the documentation you have readily available and consult an expert to assess and quantify delays.

3. Nature of the Delay Events

The complexity of the delays themselves must be considered. If a single, isolated event, like late permit approval, sets a project back, the straightforward “impacted as-planned” method may suffice.

However, most large-scale projects face concurrent delays, where owner-caused delays and contractor-caused delays happen simultaneously. In these complex scenarios, you need a more sophisticated method that can isolate these events to allocate liability accurately. 

4. Project Complexity

How complex is your project? Assessing the size and complexity of the project schedule will help you determine which analysis methods are practical. 

Simple projects often lack the detailed logic required for complex modeling techniques, making straightforward, observational methods like as-planned vs. as-built more appropriate. Conversely, large-scale projects with hundreds of interrelated activities typically require a more robust approach, such as time impact analysis (TIA), to capture the cause and effect of delays accurately.

5. Audience

Who will review the analysis results? If the goal is to negotiate a change order with a project manager during construction, a prospective method like TIA is the standard. This allows both parties to agree on a time extension before a change impacts the entire project.

However, if a dispute heads to arbitration or litigation after the project ends, the audience changes to legal professionals. Here, retrospective methods like windows analysis are often preferred because they rely on as-built data — what actually happened — rather than what was predicted to occur.

6. Adherence to Industry Standards

Using a credible, carefully selected delay analysis method is critical to withstand scrutiny by the opposing party and resolve a dispute efficiently. One way to ensure you’ve chosen a method that can hold up to examination is to align your choice with recognized global frameworks. 

While the Project Management Institute sets the standard for creating and maintaining project schedules, two industry authorities provide the standard guidelines for delay analysis:

• AACE International Recommended Practice 29R-03: This recommended practice provides the technical principles for applying The Critical Path Method in forensic analysis. It categorizes varying methodologies as observational or modeled, which helps analysts evaluate which approach is technically feasible with the project data available.
• The Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol: This protocol directs analysts to select a methodology based on objective criteria, such as the proportionality of costs and the nature of the dispute, rather than the desired financial outcome.

7. Budget for the Analysis

Forensic delay analysis requires significant time and resources. The budget allocated for the analysis should be proportionate to what’s at stake.

For example, it’s rarely cost-effective to perform a complex, time-consuming analysis for a minor claim. In these cases, a simpler method may provide sufficient proof to substantiate the delay without costing more than the claim itself.

For high-stakes claims involving millions of dollars in liquidated damages or prolongation costs, the expense of a comprehensive analysis is likely justified to provide the level of detail required for the claim to remain defensible.

8. Time Allowed for Analysis

Contracts typically specify deadlines for notifying a project owner of a delay and submitting a time extension claim. For example, a contractor might have seven days to notify an owner of a delay event and describe the impact if they want a time extension.

While reviewing your contract, consider how much time you have to conduct an analysis and whether a particular method can realistically be performed by the deadline.

9. Skills and Capability

Determine whether the person conducting the analysis has the technical skills to analyze data accurately and judge the results.

The as-planned vs. as-built method is easier since it involves comparing schedules rather than creating models. The TIA method, by contrast, can be more complex and may not be the best option if skills are a concern and if your contract allows other analysis techniques.

Checklist for Selecting a Construction Delay Analysis Method

To help you narrow the factors above into a decision, consider these questions:

• Is the project still active? If it is, lean toward TIA to resolve issues as they arise rather than retroactively. If the project is already complete, consider using windows analysis or as-planned vs. as-built.
• Is the baseline schedule reliable? If it is, it’s possible to use modeled methods like impacted as-planned or TIA. If it’s not reliable, the schedule logic may need to be reconstructed before a reliable analysis can be performed.
• Are there significant concurrent delays? If yes, use the windows analysis method to isolate liability in specific time periods. If not, simpler methods may suffice.
• Is the dispute headed for court? If so, prioritize AACE- or SCL-compliant methods, like windows analysis.

Choose the Right Methodology With Spire

Selecting the appropriate delay analysis method is the first step toward a substantiated and defensible claim. It’s necessary to understand each method’s strengths and limitations to determine which is most suitable for your specific circumstances. 

If you need assistance choosing a methodology or if your project is facing delays or other issues, don’t hesitate to contact us. Our team of delay analysis and resolution experts can help you quantify impacts, substantiate your position, and get your project back on track.

The content included in this article is for informational purposes only and does not reflect the opinions or recommendations expressed by any individual unless otherwise stated.