Application of the methodology for this submission a Outline of the Approach

To follow the methodology of the Society of Construction Law’s

‘Delay and Disruption Protocol’ for Time Impact Analysis, requires the following approach:

i Establish a ‘Baseline’ programme.

ii Establish the As-Built data for all activities on the baseline pro-gramme.

iii Investigate and schedule chronologically the ‘Events’ considered to potentially give an entitlement to an Extension of Time.

iv Create a subnet for each Event.

v Analyse the impact, or likely impact, of the Event on the progress of the works and determine if any delay to progress is likely to cause delay to the Completion Date of the Project.

Practical completion of the project was achieved on 8 October some 26 months after project commencement on 6 August 2002. For presentation purposes, we have divided the overall time period of the project into 4 number tranches.

The start/finish of each tranche being a key landmark in the project, as follows,

i Tranche 1: from start of Project (6 August 2002) to start of Super-structure Work on 24 January 2003.

184 Extensions of time

ii Tranche 2: from start of Superstructure Work (24 January 2003) to start of Steel Structural Work on 2 July 2003.

iii Tranche 3: from start of Steel Structural Work (2 July 2003) to Building Substantially Watertight on 3 February 2004.

iv Tranche 4: from Building Substantially Watertight (3 February 2004) to start of Practical Completion on 8 October 2005.

b As-Built Data

As the Time Impact Analysis methodology requires a progress update of the ‘baseline’ programme at the time of each Event, an important aspect is the as-built data for each activity on the MP01 programme.

During the course of the project ‘xxx’ made various EOT submis-sions to the Architect. Included in these submissubmis-sions were as-built data, i.e. actual start & finish dates, for activities on their MP01 programme. We have used this data in establishing an ‘As-Built Schedule’.

However, the data shown on the EOT submissions, does not show interim percentage completions for activities that spanned several months. For this information we have relied upon ‘xxx’s’ progress updates which were carried out at approximately monthly intervals, and in most cases presented at the regular monthly site meetings.

A schedule of the As-Built data we have established, and used in the extension of time analysis, is included in appendix xx.

c The ‘Events’

A thorough technical investigation of the project’s contemporaneous records has been carried out to identify those events which possibly give entitlement to an extension of time.

The results of this exercise are contained within 5 number ring binders accompanying this submission, which include supporting information for each of these possible events.

Following this initial exercise, a subsequent exercise was carried out which involved a review of the possible events by those closely involved with the project to ascertain which of the ‘possible events’

should now be considered as potential ‘Events’ for the extension of time analysis.

This rationalisation exercise required the input of those closely involved during the construction of the project to avoid the inclusion of spurious events which may have no factual or likely impact basis.

After this second exercise, the list of ‘Events’ is now some 762 number; and these are the potential events that were analysed individ-ually for delay, or likely delay, to progress.

The ‘Schedule of 762 Events’ is included in appendix xx.

A brief explanation of the columns and their ‘headings’ on this schedule is given below,

Prospective analysis 185

i Col. 1, ‘Event ref.nr.’; this is the unique reference number of the Event.

ii Col. 2, ‘Event date’; the date of the Event, i.e. the date of occur-rence of the Employer’s Risk Event.

iii Col. 3, ‘xxx ref.’; the unique reference number of the supporting factual and technical information contained in the technical files.

iv Col. 4, ‘Description’; a brief description of the Event.

v Col. 5, ‘Document reference’; a note of the technical reference document for the Event, e.g. RFI, drawing number, etc.

vi Col. 6, ‘Programme act.nr. Affected: MP01’; the programme activity number on programme ‘MP01’, which was directly affected by the Event.

vii Cols. 7 & 8, ‘Clause 25 sub-clause ref.’; an indication of the spe-cific sub-clause(s) of clause 25 for the spespe-cific Event.

d The Subnets for each Event

For each Event we have created a subnet. The subnet illustrates the work flowing from the Event.

For example, on receipt of a revised drawing it may be necessary to procure some materials, such as ventilation ductwork. There will be an activity shown on the subnet ‘Procurement of ductwork (xx weeks)’. This will then be linked to the MP01 programme activity(s) that the materials are required for.

Similarly, where Events necessitate the design/approval/manufac-ture of materials, then the ‘lead-in’ periods for the major sub-contract packages as defined in ‘xxx’s’ original MP01 programme are used.

Full details for each subnet for each Category 1 Event are included in appendix xx.

e ‘Time Impact Analysis’ Methodology as detailed in the SCL Proto-col

The SCL Protocol’s guidance and methodology for Time Impact Analysis is set down in three steps in section 3.2.7.

First, ‘the Programme should be brought fully up to date (as to progress and the effect of all delays that have occurred up to that date, whether Employer Delays or Contractor Delays) to the point immedi-ately before the occurrence of the Employer Risk Event’.

Second, ‘the programme should then be modified to reflect the Con-tractor’s realistic and achievable plans to recover any delays that have occurred, including any changes to the logic of the Programme posed for that purpose (subject to CA review and acceptance as pro-vided in Guidance Section 2.2.3)’.

Third, ‘the sub-network representing the Employer Risk Event should then be entered into the programme and the impact on the con-tract completion dates should be noted’.

186 Extensions of time

f Performing the Extension of Time Analysis

To adhere to this methodology, for each Event we carried out a progress update (of programme MP01) as of the date of the Event.

The project was then time-analysed, i.e. statused to determine the new forecast completion date for the project based on the progress achieved to date.

We then inserted the subnet for the Event into the updated progress update of Ren.01. The programme is then time-analysed, or statused, again, and the new forecast completion date for the project deter-mined.

Any slippage in the forecast completion date for the project from the progress update without the subnet and the progress update with the subnet is a consequence of the subnet, i.e. the Event.

The amount of slippage is the Extension of Time entitlement for that Employer Risk Event.

At this point in the submission, the contractor referred to his baseline pro-gramme ‘MP01’ and informed the reviewer that copies of these were included in appendix ‘xxx’ to the submission.

A copy of the contractor’s programme ‘MP01’, is included in appendix 4A of this book. Appendix 4A contains two charts as follows:

i Chart 4A a shows all the programme activities, sorted by work area.

ii Chart 4A b shows the planned critical path for the project.

As referred to under item ‘b’ above, ‘As-Built Data’, the ‘time impact analysis’ relies on the project’s progress to be recorded at the time of each event. Where progress has been reported contemporaneously, e.g. in the contractor’s monthly reports, this information should be used, subject to checking for errors. For this submission, the contractor used his contempo-raneous progress reports, and these were presented in tabular format in his submission. A copy is given in appendix 4B at the end of this book.

D: Results of the analysis