In FIDIC-based construction projects, delay analysis is essential for evaluating Extension of Time (EOT) claims and determining responsibility for project delays. While FIDIC itself does not prescribe a specific delay analysis method, it requires the Contractor to demonstrate causation and impact on the completion date, typically through recognized delay analysis techniques.
Several types of delay analysis are commonly used in practice, depending on project complexity, available data, and timing of the claim.
📊 1. As-Planned vs As-Built Analysis
This is one of the simplest methods, comparing the original planned schedule with the actual progress.
- Compares baseline schedule vs actual execution
- Identifies differences in timing and sequence
- Easy to understand but less accurate for complex projects
👉 Best for: simple projects or preliminary assessments
📈 2. Impacted As-Planned Analysis
This method adds delay events into the original baseline schedule to assess their impact.
- Inserts delay events into planned programme
- Calculates theoretical delay impact
- Does not consider actual progress
👉 Best for: prospective (forward-looking) analysis early in the project
🔄 3. Time Impact Analysis (TIA)
A widely accepted method in FIDIC projects, especially for EOT claims.
- Inserts delay events into an updated schedule at the time they occurred
- Evaluates impact on the critical path
- Uses contemporaneous project data
👉 Best for: realistic and contractually strong EOT claims
📉 4. As-Built But-For Analysis
This method analyzes what would have happened “but for” a specific delay event.
- Removes delay events from actual schedule
- Calculates how completion would have differed
- Useful for isolating responsibility
👉 Best for: retrospective (after project completion) disputes
🔍 5. Collapsed As-Built Analysis
A more advanced version of “but-for” analysis.
- Starts with actual (as-built) programme
- Removes delay events to determine adjusted completion
- Helps assess concurrent delays
👉 Best for: dispute resolution and arbitration cases
🧠 6. Window Analysis (Contemporaneous Period Analysis)
This method divides the project into time windows and analyzes delays in each period.
- Breaks project into segments (monthly or milestone-based)
- Tracks delay progression over time
- Considers changing critical path
👉 Best for: complex projects with multiple delay events
⚖️ Which Method is Preferred in FIDIC?
In FIDIC practice, the most commonly accepted methods are:
- Time Impact Analysis (TIA) → for ongoing projects
- Window Analysis → for detailed and complex claims
These methods are preferred because they:
- Use contemporaneous data
- Reflect actual project conditions
- Demonstrate clear causation and critical path impact
📌 Key Principle in FIDIC Delay Analysis
Regardless of the method used, the Contractor must prove:
- The delay event occurred
- It was Employer-risk or excusable
- It impacted the critical path
- It caused delay to project completion
🧱 Conclusion
FIDIC does not mandate a specific delay analysis technique, but it requires a logical, evidence-based demonstration of delay and causation. Choosing the right method depends on project conditions, available records, and the stage of the claim. Strong delay analysis is essential for successfully securing Extension of Time and defending claims in construction disputes.
No comments:
Post a Comment