Time, quality and cost are the three crucial elements of a construction contract. A perfect project would be carried out on time, at a low cost, and be of high quality. But it’s not always that simple. As the saying goes, “time is money”. Delays to construction projects are a major cause of disputes and spark great debate in the industry. But what is the best method of delay analysis and do they all produce the same result?
Back in October 2002, the publication of the Society of Construction Law’s ‘Delay and Disruption Protocol’ caused continued debate about the key delay issues that arise in construction projects. The Great Delay Analysis Debate considered the motion that ‘the time impact method is the most appropriate for the analysis of delay in construction disputes’, and the experts involved presented divergent views basing their arguments on different delay analysis methodologies.
Same same, but different?
There are several different delay analysis methods that can produce different results due to the many variables involved and the subjectivity of analyses. The selection of the appropriate delay analysis methodology is not academic; it has practical and potentially costly implications, so should be chosen wisely.
What are the main methods?
Forensic delay analysis methods generally conform to one of four primary categories: impacted as planned, time impact analysis, collapsed as-built, and as planned versus as built.
Adi Alsaeedy is a Director at FTI Consulting in Qatar. He has over 30 years of experience in the construction industry, combined with robust experience in matters relating to delay, acceleration, disruption and loss of productivity.