Analysis Methods in Time-Based Claims
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 134, Issue 4
Abstract
Assessing the impact of delay and resolving disputes are contentious issues since courts and administrative boards do not specify standard delay analysis practices. First, the advantages and disadvantages of widely used delay analysis methods, including the as-planned versus as-built, impact as-planned, collapsed as-built, time impact, and productivity analysis methods are summarized. Fifty-eight claim cases associated with time-based disputes in government work during the 1992–2005 period are extracted and analyzed to observe issues in time-based claims, including the reasons why they occur and the common practices in their resolution. The effects of various factors on the selection of a delay analysis method are examined. These factors include the type of schedule used, the schedule updating practice, the use of existing versus newly created schedules, and the availability of expertise, information, time, and funds. A project management system that makes use of regularly updated network schedules, and that maintains adequate project records should allow a scheduling expert to select a delay analysis method that would make a claim quite convincing.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Abdul-Malak, A. U., El-Saadi, M. H., and Abou-Zeid, M. G. (2002). “Process model for administration of construction claims.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 18(2), 84–94.
Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M., and Harris, F. (1996). “Construction delay analysis techniques.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 14(5), 375–394.
Arditi, D., and Pattanakitchamroon, T. (2006). “Selecting a delay analysis method in resolving construction claims.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 24(2), 145–155.
Baram, G. E. (1994). “Delay analysis—Issue not for granted.” Trans. Am. Assn. Cost. Eng., 1994, DCL.5.1–DCL.5.9.
Bordoli, D. W., and Baldwin, A. N. (1998). “A methodology for assessing construction project delays.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 16(3), 327–337.
Bramble, B. B., and Callahan, M. T. (1987). Construction delay claims, Wiley Law Publications, New York.
Bubshait, A. A., and Cunningham, M. J. (1998). “Comparison of delay analysis methodologies.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(4), 315–322.
Finke, M. R. (1999). “Window analyses of compensable delays.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(2), 96–100.
Fruchtman, E. (2000). “Delay analysis—Eliminating the smoke and mirrors.” Trans. Am. Assn. Cost. Eng., 2000, CDR.6.1–CDR.6.4.
Gasan, K. (1996). “The reliability of critical path method (CPM) techniques in the analysis and evaluation of delay claims.” Cost Eng., 56(5), 35–37.
Gothand, K. D. (2003). “Schedule delay analysis: Modified windows approach.” Cost Eng., 45(9), 18–23.
Harris, R. A., and Scott, S. (2001). “UK practice in dealing with claims for delay.” Eng., Constr., Archit. Manage., 8(5–6), 317–324.
Kartam, S. (1999). “Generic methodology for analyzing delay claims.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(6), 409–419.
Lee, J. (2003). “Construction delay analysis method.” Trans. Am. Assn. Cost. Eng., ABI/INFORM Complete, 2003, PS14.1–PS14.6.
Livengood, J. C., and Laush, B. G. (2003). “Daily delay measure: A new technique to precisely identify delay.” Trans. Am. Assn. Cost. Eng., 2003, CD21–CD2.9.
Lovejoy, V. A. (2004). “Claims schedule development and analysis: Collapsed as-built scheduling for beginners.” Cost Eng., 46(1), 27–30.
McCullough, R. B. (1999). “CPM schedules in construction claims from the contractor’s perspective.” Trans. Am. Assn. Cost. Eng., 1999, CDR.2.1–CDR.2.4.
Popescu, C. (1991). “Selecting as-planned base in project disputes.” Trans. Am. Assn. Cost. Eng., 1991, C2.1–C2.4.
RS Means. (2004). Building construction cost data, 2004 Ed., RS Means, Kingston, Mass.
Shi, J. J., Cheung, S. O., and Arditi, D. (2001). “Construction delay computation method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(1), 60–65.
Society of Construction Law (SCL). (2002). “Delay and disruption protocol.” ⟨www.eotprotocol.com⟩.
Spittler, J. R. (2003). “Analyzing concurrent delay when using the ‘lean’ approach to scheduling.” Trans. Am. Assn. Cost. Eng., 2003, CD19.1–CD19.7.
Stumpf, G. R. (2000). “Schedule delay analysis.” Cost Eng., 42(7), 32–43.
Wickwire, J., Driscoll, T., and Hurlbut, S. (1991). Construction scheduling preparation, liability, and claims, Wiley Law Publications, New York.
Winter, J., and Johnson, P. (2000). “Resolving complex delay claims.” Rep. on the Meeting of the Society of Construction Law on 6th June 2000 at the National Liberal Club, Whitehall Place, London.
Zack, J., Jr. (1999). “Pacing delay—The practical effect.” Trans. Am. Assn. Cost. Eng., 1999, CDR.1.1–CDR.1.6.
Zack, J., Jr. (2001). “But-for schedules—Analysis and defense.” Cost Eng., 8(43), 13–17.
Zafar, Q. Z. (1996). “Construction project delay analysis.” Cost Eng., 38(3), 23–27.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 134 • Issue 4 • April 2008
Pages: 242 - 252
Copyright
© 2008 ASCE.
History
Received: Sep 8, 2006
Accepted: Aug 17, 2007
Published online: Apr 1, 2008
Published in print: Apr 2008
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.