2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

CDR.493

Forensic Schedule Analysis:

Example Implementation, Part 2
Mark C. Sanders, PE CCE PSP
ABSTRACT— Recommended Practice 29R-03—Forensic Schedule Analysis, has aroused significant
debate in the forensic scheduling community since its original publication in 2007. Now in its second
revision, the RP continues to evolve in pursuit of the original goal of providing a unifying technical
reference for the forensic application of the critical path method of scheduling. During the
development of the original RP, there was a proposal to include example analysis implementations, in
so-called “cookbook” sections. The material developed for two of those sections was presented in
2008, in a paper detailing the forensic analysis of a sample project using Method Implementation
Protocols 3.3 and 3.7. This paper presents an analysis of the same project using MIPs 3.1, 3.2, and 3.8;
presents a comparison of the results from all five analyses; and provides additional discussion of issues
likely to be encountered in an actual implementation of the guidelines in the recommended practice.

CDR.493.1
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ 2
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Model Project to be Analyzed ............................................................................................................. 4
Analysis by Comparing the As-Planned and As-Built Schedules (MIP 3.1) ........................................... 11
Analysis by Comparing the As-Planned and As-Built Schedules (MIP 3.2) ........................................... 19
Analysis by Removing Delay Events from the As-Built Schedule ......................................................... 28
Comparison and Commentary ............................................................................................................ 38
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 41
References .......................................................................................................................................... 42

List of Tables

Table 1 – Summary of Project Information ......................................................................................... 7

Table 2 – Activity-Level Variances for MIP 3.1 .................................................................................... 13
Table 3 – Completed Activity-Level Variance Table for MIP 3.2 .......................................................... 26
Table 4 – Summary of Delays from Three Analyses ............................................................................ 39
Table 5 – Simplified Summary of Delays from Three Analyses ............................................................ 40
Table 6 – Summary of Delays from Five Analyses ............................................................................... 41

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Baseline Schedule .............................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2 – Schedule Logic Diagram ..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 – As-Built Schedule ............................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4 – As-Planned vs. As-Built ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5 – As-Planned vs. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 1, Draft) ...................................... 15
Figure 6 – As-Planned vs. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 2, Draft) ...................................... 16
Figure 7 – As-Planned vs. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 3, Draft) ...................................... 17
Figure 8 – As-Planned vs. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 4, Final) ....................................... 18
Figure 9 – As-Planned vs. Update 1 Progress with ALVs for Period ..................................................... 20
Figure 10 - As-Planned vs. Update 2 Progress with ALVs for Period .................................................... 21
Figure 11 - As-Planned vs. Update 3 Progress with ALVs for Period .................................................... 22
Figure 12 - As-Planned vs. Update 4 Progress with ALVs for Period .................................................... 23
Figure 13 - As-Planned vs. Update 5 Progress with ALVs for Period .................................................... 24
Figure 14 - As-Planned vs. As-Built Progress with ALVs for Period ...................................................... 25
Figure 15 – Fragnet A ......................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 16 – Fragnet B ......................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 17 – Fragnet C ......................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 18 – Fragnet D ......................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 19 – As-Built Schedule Including Fragnets A through D ............................................................ 31
Figure 20 – De-Statused As-Built Schedule ......................................................................................... 32
Figure 21 – Collapsed As-Built with First Delay Removed ................................................................... 33
CDR.493.2
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Figure 22 – Collapsed As-Built with Second Delay Removed ............................................................... 34
Figure 23 – Collapsed As-Built with Third Delay Removed .................................................................. 35
Figure 24 – Collapsed As-Built with Fourth Delay Removed ................................................................ 36
Figure 25 – Collapsed As-Built with Fifth Delay Removed ................................................................... 36
Figure 26 – Collapsed As-Built with Extended Durations Removed ..................................................... 37
Figure 27 – Collapsed As-Built with Remaining Tilt-Up Walls Duration Restored ................................ 38

CDR.493.3
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Introduction

This paper is the second in a series that presents a Forensic Schedule Analysis (FSA) example
implementation, prepared to address the application of procedures described in Recommended
Practice 29R-03—Forensic Schedule Analysis [1]. The techniques explored here, or variations on these
techniques, have been commonly referred to as “As-Planned v. As-Built,” “As-Planned v. Update,” and
“Collapsed As-Built.” Those terms are not used here, in preference for the taxonomic terms presented
in the RP 29R-03. This paper presents three separate analyses of the same project. The analyses are
based on the Method Implementation Protocols in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.8 of the Recommended
Practice. The paper has five major sections:

1. Model Project to be Analyzed

2. Analysis by Comparing the As-Planned and As-Built Schedules
(Observational/Static/Gross Analysis per MIP 3.1)
3. Analysis by Comparing the As-Planned and As-Built Schedules on a Periodic Basis
(Observational/Static/Periodic Analysis per MIP 3.2)
4. Analysis by Removing Delay Events from the As-Built Schedule (Modeled/Subtractive
Single-Simulation Analysis per MIP 3.8)
5. Comparison, Commentary, and Conclusion

Model Project to be Analyzed

The sample project referenced in this paper is the same project used in the example implementation
for MIPs 3.3 and 3.7, presented in 2008 [2]. The description of the sample project presented in that
paper is reiterated here for reference. The original sample project was provided for the consideration
of the participants in the RP development committee and had been used previously for the comparison
of various delay analysis techniques [3].

The model project is the construction of a storage building. The building will be used to store non-
hazardous, dry materials. The design consists of tilt-up concrete panels with a steel-framed, metal roof.
A much smaller receiving and reception area is attached. The reception area is framed with metal studs
and enclosed with an exterior-insulating and finishing system (EIFS). Personnel arrive through the
reception area and goods are delivered by truck to the all-weather docking unit in that area. The
available information for the project includes a baseline schedule, six schedule updates, and a
summary of project events based on the contractor’s and owner’s files.

CDR.493.4
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Baseline Schedule
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 0 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start

M990 0 0 0 Project Finish

STOREHOUSE

S100 2 2 0 S110 2 2 Excavation

S110 2 2 0 S120 2 2 Foundation

S120 1 1 0 R110, S130 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 4 4 0 S140 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S140 3 3 0 S160 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing

S150 1 1 11 S160 1 Select Racking System

S160 3 3 0 S170 2 2 2 Install Racking

S170 1 1 0 M990 2 Punchlist

RECEPTION

R100 6 6 7 R130 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit

R110 3 3 3 R120 1 1 Reception Walls

R120 2 2 3 R130 1 1 1 Reception Roof

R130 2 2 3 S170 1 1 Install Docking Unit

Figure 1—Baseline Schedule

Figure 1 depicts the as-planned schedule as a bar chart, and figure 2 shows the logic diagram. In the
example project schedule, the project start milestone has start-to-start relationships with its
successors, and the punchlist activity has a finish-to-finish relationship with the project finish
milestone. All other relationships are finish-to-start, and there are no lags. Durations are in weeks, and
the project is planned to take 16 weeks to complete. The baseline critical path begins with project start
and proceeds through excavation, foundation, tilt-up joining wall, remaining tilt-up walls, beams and
roofing, install racking, punchlist, and project finish. There are no constraints in the schedule. The
following logic diagram details the relationships in the baseline schedule.

CDR.493.5
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

M10 S150
0

S140 S160 S170

S100 S110 S120 S130

R110 R120 R130

R100 M99
0

Figure 2—Schedule Logic Diagram

The following figure shows the as-built schedule for the same project.
As-Built Schedule
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start

M990 0 0 Project Finish

STOREHOUSE

S100 2 0 S110 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

S110 2 0 S120 3 3 Foundation

S120 1 0 R110, S130 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 4 0 S140 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S140 3 0 S160 3 3 3 Beams & Roofing

S150 1 0 S160 Select Racking System 3

S160 3 0 S170 Install Racking 3 3 3 3 3

S170 1 0 M990 Punchlist 3

RECEPTION

R100 6 0 R130 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

R110 3 0 R120 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reception Walls

R120 2 0 R130 3 3 Reception Roof

R130 2 0 S170 Install Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

Figure 3—As-Built Schedule

CDR.493.6
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
The project actually took 24 weeks to complete, as shown in figure 3. Relevant information from the
project records is summarized in table 1, outlining the events that occurred during the project.

Week Contractor’s Records Owner’s Records

1 Mobilized excavator and crew; laid out Contractor mobilized excavation crew
building pad and began excavation at on Monday; performed survey of
storehouse area; hit existing building pad and placed E&S controls;
underground storage tank (UST) on began excavation late Monday;
Thursday that was shown on the project uncovered UST on Thursday (received
drawings as outside of the building RFI); called enviro. consultant; and they
footprint; material in building footprint can be on site on Tuesday
smells contaminated and may require
remediation or replacement; wrote RFI
and moved crew to far side of building
away from UST area for remainder of
week
2 Operator showed on Monday but Enviro. consultant verified VOC in soil on
refused to continue work without Tuesday; submitted report on Friday
knowing what contamination was; got a stating that contamination is below
new operator on Wednesday and hazardous threshold; soil can be over-
continued excavation outside of excavated, aerated for one week, and
contaminated area; completed all replaced; consultant will be on site to
available excavation by Friday AM; monitor; contractor to begin on Monday
received direction to over-excavate soil and submit LS proposal for added work
beginning on Monday by Friday; will track T&M in the mean
time just in case
3 Removed UST and began excavation of Enviro. consultant monitoring
contaminated material as directed by remediation work; contractor submitted
enviro. consultant; stockpiling on site LS proposal for mitigation on
and pushing around as directed; not Wednesday; meeting on Friday to
enough footings available to begin negotiate proposal
concrete work and site is a mess with
stockpiles
4 Continuing excavation and mitigation of Enviro. consultant continues to monitor
contaminated soil as directed by enviro. ongoing remediation work; contractor
consultant; begin backfilling excavation submitted revised proposal on Tuesday;
with mitigated material as directed; contract price adjustment in
executed change order for work; no time conformance with the revised proposal
extension granted, but owner agreed to was returned to contractor; contractor
revisit the issue later in the job also requested a two-week time
extension, but that was not executed,
because it is still early in the job and the
delay may be recovered

CDR.493.7
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Week Contractor’s Records Owner’s Records
5 On Monday, received a letter from the Contractor had reduced crew
docking unit supplier stating that its completing backfilling of over-
plant is at capacity and our fabrication excavation and footing trenches; footing
will start six weeks from today; told rebar delivered to site on Thursday;
them that they would be impacting our footing bottom inspections scheduled
schedule and that we cannot wait that for Monday, with placements planned
long; completed backfill of over- on Monday and Thursday next week
excavation and restoration of all footing
trenches; will proceed with footings next
week
6 Completed footing placements; Footing placements completed on
proceeding with foundation walls; Monday and Thursday; contractor is
installed U/G for bathroom at reception forming and reinforcing foundation
and U/G electrical conduits for service walls on Monday’s footings; also
completed underground utility work to
building
7 Contacted casting yard on Monday—all Contractor completed FRP of all
tilt-up panels are ready for delivery; foundations on Tuesday; last
scheduled joining wall for next Monday; foundations were stripped and
completed and backfilled all foundations backfilled on Friday
8 Joining wall delivered Monday; set-up Tilted up joining wall on Wednesday;
for raising; raised joining wall on exterior wall panels delivered on
Wednesday; exterior wall panels Thursday; several panels had
delivered on Thursday; setting up for honeycombing; contractor followed
raising next week specified repair procedures
9 All panels on site; raising began on Panel erection proceeding according to
Monday; connecting and providing accepted erection plan; light-gage steel
temporary bracing per erection plan; framing at reception also began; worked
also began framing steel stud walls at Saturday to finish all panel erection, but
reception; panel erection subcontractor no steel or roofing materials have been
worked through Saturday to complete delivered to site yet; noted concern to
work and demobilized contractor as we were three weeks
behind schedule according to the last
schedule update and we could recover
that time if we get roofing started next
week
10 Continuing steel stud work at reception; Light-gage framing at reception area
cleaning up from panel erection and fine continues and is 50% complete by the
grading up to building end of the week; minimal other work
underway; no structural steel or joists
on site

CDR.493.8
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Week Contractor’s Records Owner’s Records
11 Completed framing work and exterior Reception area framed and sheathed;
wall and roof sheathing at reception; contractor is proceeding with electrical
installing EIFS panels and roof rough-in at stud walls and bathroom
membrane and proceeding with interior plumbing in reception area; note: these
rough-in; contacted docking unit MEP details are not in the contractor’s
supplier to verify start of fabrication and schedule; when asked to add them for
they said fabrication will begin next tracking purposes, contractor indicated
week with delivery anticipated in six that they were included in the
weeks; this is going to be a delay “Reception Walls” activity; still no
structural steel, joists, or standing-seam
materials on site
12 Completed electrical rough-in and Surveyor on site verifying tilt-up panel
bathroom plumbing; completed exterior installation. Contractor running conduit
panels at reception; span on installed and plumbing in reception.
tilt-up panels does not appear to match
joist shop drawings; survey on site to
verify; will field modify joists as
necessary.
13 Steel and roof panels arrived on Monday Structural steel and roofing panels
and beam erection began, but first beam arrived on Monday; contractor began
was three inches longer than bay; the erection but steel did not match up with
steel matches the accepted shop panel tie-in points; beams are three
drawings and the contract structural inches too long; contractor proposed
drawings, but the panel tie-in points do field cutting steel; that can be done per
not appear to match up; survey showed spec, but full roof panels must be
that installed panels match with trimmed by manufacturer to maintain
accepted erection drawings, but warranty; electrical and plumbing work
architectural drawings showing center- at reception passed inspections on
to-center wall dimensions and panel Wednesday.
dimensions do not match structural
drawings; erected bay is three inches
shorter than shown on the structural
drawings; steel and roof panels will have
to be modified; submitted procedures.
14 Owner will not allow field modification Contractor did not verify all dimensions
of roof panels; panels to be returned to as required and contractor-fabricated
the supplier for modification. Proceeded tilt-up panels did not align with joists;
with joist modifications. contractor wants to field modify joists
and roofing, but extensive field bending
or cutting of roof panels may void
warranty; directed contractor to return
panels to manufacturer; joist
modifications proceeded on site.
15 Completed reception framing and Contractor working on reception panels.
exterior panel erection.

CDR.493.9
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Week Contractor’s Records Owner’s Records
16 Received half shipment of modified Contractor working on reception
panels for storage; proceeding with roofing.
roofing at reception.
17 Reception roofing completed; docking Contractor installed joists and began
unit to arrive next week; proceeding installing roofing panels at storage.
with joist and roofing installation at
storage.
18 Received remaining roof panels; All modified roofing panels have been
completed insulation and returned to site.
hang/tape/texture of drywall in
reception area; ready for painting;
docking unit arrived and installation
began; have been waiting for owner to
select racking system; supplier can
provide multiple options, but final
selection is becoming critical.
19 Began racking system installation; Contractor is proceeding with racking
continuing docking unit installation. and docking unit installation.
20 Began racking system installation; Contractor is proceeding with racking
continuing docking unit installation. and docking unit installation.
21 Began electrical installation at storage. Racking system installation is nearing
completion, but contractor is having
difficulty with docking unit installation;
had to reset docking unit due to
misalignment.
22 Completed electrical; completing racking Contractor continues work on racking
system and docking unit. and electrical. Docking unit still
incomplete. Provided contractor with
punchlist.
23 Completed all work; proceeding with Contractor completed racking and
minor punchlist items. electrical; proceeding with punchlist
items.
24 Completed punchlist; signed off; project Signed off on final punchlist completion.
complete.
Table 1—Summary of Project Information

The summary of project information will be used in conjunction with the project schedules. The goal of
the schedule analysis will be to identify the specific activity delays that resulted in the overall eight-
week delay to project completion. Including the as-built schedule, there were six updates to the
baseline schedule. The updates were completed after every four weeks of work.

CDR.493.10
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Analysis by Comparing the As-Planned and As-Built Schedules

Observational/Static/Gross Analysis per MIP 3.1

This analysis will be performed based on the method implementation protocol (MIP) described in
Section 3.1 of the RP. The analysis is classified as retrospective because the analysis is performed after
the delay events and the impacts of those events have occurred and the outcome is known. The
analysis is observational because no activities are added or subtracted from the schedule to model
delays or changes to the plan; the progress from the as-built schedule is simply compared to the
original as-planned schedule. The analysis is static because the critical path of the as-planned schedule
is used as the basis for identifying critical delays throughout the project. The analysis is gross because
the as-built schedule is compared directly to the as-planned schedule. Interim updates are not
analyzed as these reflect only a subset of the information that is ultimately captured in the final as-
built schedule.

According to the RP, MIP 3.1 recommends the implementation of the Source Validation Protocols
(SVPs) as follow: SVP 2.1 (baseline validation); SVP 2.2 (as-built validation) or SVP 2.3 (update
validation); and SVP 2.4 (delay identification and quantification). There are no additional SVPs
recommended for an enhanced implementation.

Other recommendations from the RP include: (1) recognize all contract time extensions granted, (2)
identify the critical path activity that will be used to track the loss or gain of time for the overall
network, and (3) separately identify activities that will be used to track intra-network time losses and
gains, such as on interim milestones. For the purpose of this example implementation, all of the
information sources have been evaluated based on the SVPs and deemed to be reliable sources of
project information for the analysis. There have been no contract time extensions granted. The activity
that will be used to track delays to the overall network will be Activity M990. There are no
intermediate milestones on the project [2].

The analysis begins with a direct comparison of the as-planned and as-built schedules. Figure 4 shows
an activity-by-activity comparison of the data from the two schedules.

CDR.493.11
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
As-Planned v. As-Built
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 0 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start

M100 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start

M990 0 0 0 Project Finish

M990 0 0 Project Finish

STOREHOUSE

S100 2 2 0 S110 2 2 Excavation

S100 2 0 S110 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

S110 2 2 0 S120 2 2 Foundation

S110 2 0 S120 3 3 Foundation

S120 1 1 0 R110, S130 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S120 1 0 R110, S130 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 4 4 0 S140 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S130 4 0 S140 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S140 3 3 0 S160 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing

S140 3 0 S160 3 3 3 Beams & Roofing

S150 1 1 11 S160 1 Select Racking System

S150 1 0 S160 Select Racking System 3

S160 3 3 0 S170 2 2 2 Install Racking

S160 3 0 S170 Install Racking 3 3 3 3 3

S170 1 1 0 M990 2 Punchlist

S170 1 0 M990 Punchlist 3

RECEPTION

R100 6 6 7 R130 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit

R100 6 0 R130 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

R110 3 3 3 R120 1 1 Reception Walls

R110 3 0 R120 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reception Walls

R120 2 2 3 R130 1 1 1 Reception Roof

R120 2 0 R130 3 3 Reception Roof

R130 2 2 3 S170 1 1 Install Docking Unit

R130 2 0 S170 Install Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

Figure 4 —As-Planned v. As-Built

Figure 4 includes the “raw” data from the as-planned and as-built schedules. The original durations
shown are the same, as they would be in the schedule files. The remaining durations are the same as
the original durations in the as-planned schedule, and are all zero in the as-built schedule. As the
relevant information for the purpose of this analysis can be read directly from the bar chart on the
right side of the figure, the columns on the left side will not be included in further figures. The planned
and actual dates and durations can be observed on the bar chart. Using this information, the analyst
might begin to identify and quantify delays from Figure 4.

SVP 2.4 recommends identifying activity-level variances (ALVs). These variances can be identified by
comparing the planned and actual dates for all activities. The variances are summarized in table 2.
CDR.493.12
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

Activity-Level Variances

Planned Planned Actual Actual Start Finish Duration

Start Finish Start Finish Variance Variance Variance

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 Project Start 1 1 0 N/A

M990 Project Finish 16 24 8 N/A

STOREHOUSE

S100 Excavation 1 2 1 5 0 3 3

S110 Foundation 3 4 6 7 3 3 0

S120 Tilt-Up Joining Wall 5 5 8 8 3 3 0

S130 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls 6 9 9 9 3 0 (3)

S140 Beams & Roofing 10 12 16 18 6 6 0

S150 Select Racking System 1 1 18 18 17 17 0

S160 Install Racking 13 15 19 23 6 8 2

S170 Punchlist 16 16 24 24 8 8 0

RECEPTION

R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 1 6 12 17 11 11 0

R110 Reception Walls 6 7 9 15 3 8 5

R120 Reception Roof 7 9 16 17 9 8 (1)

R130 Install Docking Unit 10 11 18 23 8 12 4

Table 2 — Activity-Level Variances for MIP 3.1

The information in table 2 shows the extent to which each activity in the schedule started late and
finished late. By comparing those variances, it also shows the extent to which each activity’s duration
exceeded its original duration. In the case of the Remaining Tilt-Up Walls and Reception Roof, the
activities actually took less time than planned. The information in table 2 is useful but not conclusive,
because variances are cumulative as the project progresses. In addition, table 2 does not indicate
whether the delays noted were critical. Further investigation is required.

CDR.493.13
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Based on the project records, there were delays associated with an underground storage tank that
impacted excavation; delivery of the docking unit; and design issues that affected roof joists and
panels. At one point, the contractor also noted that selection of the racking system was “becoming
critical,” but selection did not appear to delay procurement, based on the project records. In any case,
Install Racking was on the critical path in the as-planned schedule, and its finish was delayed by eight
weeks, so the analysis will begin there.

Figure 5 is an initial attempt to associate the overall eight-week project delay with the individual
activity delays shown in table 2. By initial inspection, it is clear that there was a total eight-week delay
to the completion of Install Racking. Racking installation started six weeks later than originally planned,
and its duration was two weeks longer than planned. These appear to be critical delays, because of the
fact that Install Racking was on the critical path in the as-planned schedule, and it was driving the start
of Punchlist, which was driving Project Finish, in the as-built schedule. The project documentation
discusses the fact that racking installation was proceeding from Weeks 19 through 23, which was two
weeks longer than planned. The documentation also indicates that the owner had an electrical
contractor working during Weeks 21 and 22, and that racking installation was suspended during that
period.

Predecessor activities will be investigated to determine what caused the delay to the start of Install
Racking. As can be seen from the activity level variances in table 2, Beams and Roofing was delayed by
six weeks, and it was a predecessor to Install Racking. In addition, we can see that there was a three-
week delay to excavation at the start of the project. Those delays are plotted on the project schedule
in the next step of the analysis.

Based on the project records, there was a delay to Excavation because of a UST that was found within
the building footprint. In addition, there was a delay to the beams and roofing because of a
dimensional discrepancy between the structural and architectural drawings. These delays are plotted
on the as-planned v. as-built comparison in figure 6. A portion of the roofing delay overlaps with the
racking delay noted previously. As the roofing delay occurred first, the overlapping portion of the
racking delay is marked as ‘concurrent,’ as the delays appear to be concurrent in figure 6.

Figure 6 now shows a total of 14 weeks of non-concurrent delay, and the actual project was only
delayed by eight weeks. Some simple presentations might stop here, having identified at least enough
delay to explain the total project delay. If a presentation is to be made on behalf of the contractor, as
part of a request for waiver of liquidated damages, it might include the following statements:

 We were delayed by three weeks because of unforeseen underground conditions

associated with the UST.
 We were delayed by an additional six weeks because of a dimensional design error
between the structural and architectural drawings.
 We started the racking later than planned; therefore, we were not able to complete it
prior to the mobilization of the owner’s electrical contractor. Racking installation had to
be suspended for two weeks during that contractor’s work.
 We are due a time extension of at least 11 weeks, so we should not be assessed
liquidated damages for finishing eight weeks late.

CDR.493.14
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
As-Planned v. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 1, Draft)
Week
Activity ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 Project Start

M100 Project Start
8-week total delay

M990 Project Finish

M990 Project Finish

STOREHOUSE

S100 2 2 Excavation
S100 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

S110 2 2 Foundation
S110 3 3 Foundation

S120 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S120 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S130 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S140 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing

S140 3 3 3 Beams & Roofing

S150 1 Select Racking System

S150 Select Racking System 3

8-week delay

S160 2 2 2 Install Racking

S160 Install Racking 3 3 3 3 3

S170 2 Punchlist
S170 Punchlist 3

RECEPTION

R100 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit

R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

R110 1 1 Reception Walls

R110 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reception Walls

R120 1 1 1 Reception Roof

R120 3 3 Reception Roof

R130 1 1 Install Docking Unit

R130 Install Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

Figure 5 — As-Planned v. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 1, Draft)

CDR.493.15
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

As-Planned v. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 2, Draft)

Week
Activity ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 Project Start

M100 Project Start
8-week total delay

M990 Project Finish

M990 Project Finish

STOREHOUSE

3-week delay

S100 2 2 Excavation
S100 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

S110 2 2 Foundation
S110 3 3 Foundation

S120 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S120 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S130 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

6-week delay

S140 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing

S140 3 3 3 Beams & Roofing

S150 1 Select Racking System

S150 Select Racking System 3

Concurrent 5-week delay

S160 2 2 2 Install Racking

S160 Install Racking 3 3 3 3 3

S170 2 Punchlist
S170 Punchlist 3

RECEPTION

R100 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit

R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

R110 1 1 Reception Walls

R110 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reception Walls

R120 1 1 1 Reception Roof

R120 3 3 Reception Roof

R130 1 1 Install Docking Unit

R130 Install Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

Figure 6 — As-Planned v. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 2, Draft)

CDR.493.16
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Depending on the owner, this presentation might be sufficient to obtain a release from liquidated
damages. However, some owners might require a more detailed analysis. Certainly, if a presentation is
to be made before an arbitration panel or in a courtroom, the contractor would likely want to have a
much more thorough presentation. If presented as an expert opinion, a presentation such as the
preceding one runs the risk of being dismissed entirely for not meeting the standards for expert
testimony. Therefore, in an attempt to add more detail—while staying within the analysis techniques
outlined in MIP 3.1—the analysis will continue. As we have identified the major delays of interest, the
sub-critical activities that have not been associated with project delays at this point are removed from
the figures for simplicity.

As-Planned v. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 3, Draft)

Week
Activity ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 Project Start

M100 Project Start
8-week total delay

M990 Project Finish

M990 Project Finish

STOREHOUSE

3-week delay

S100 2 2 Excavation
S100 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

S110 2 2 Foundation
S110 3 3 Foundation

S120 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S120 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S130 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S140 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing

S160 2 2 2 Install Racking
S170 2 Punchlist
6-week delay 2-week delay

S140 Beams & Roofing 3 3 3

S160 Install Racking 3 3 3 3 3
S170 Punchlist 3

Figure 7 — As-Planned v. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 3, Draft)

CDR.493.17
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Figure 7 shows that the entire six-week delay to Install Racking could be associated with the late finish
of Beams and Roofing. This leaves a two-week delay associated with the extended duration of Install
Racking, and eliminates the concurrent delay noted in Figure 6. As can be seen in figure 7, Beams and
Roofing and Install Racking were planned sequentially and actually proceeded sequentially. They were
not concurrent activities, and there was no concurrent delay. Instead, the delays were sequential. Still,
figure 7 shows a total of 11 weeks of delay. As the overall project was only delayed by eight weeks,
further investigation is required to resolve the discrepancy.

As-Planned v. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 4, Final)

Week
Activity ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 Project Start

M100 Project Start
8-week total delay

M990 Project Finish

M990 Project Finish

STOREHOUSE

S100 2 2 Excavation
S110 2 2 Foundation
S120 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall
S130 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

3-week delay 3-week recovery

S100 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation
S110 Foundation 3 3
S120 Tilt-Up Joining Wall 3
S130 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls 3

S140 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing

S160 2 2 2 Install Racking
S170 2 Punchlist
6-week delay 2-week delay

S140 Beams & Roofing 3 3 3

S160 Install Racking 3 3 3
S170 Punchlist 3

Figure 8 — As-Planned v. As-Built with Annotated Delays (Version 4, Final)

CDR.493.18
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Figure 8 recognizes the fact that the delay to Excavation was recovered by Week 9, and the Remaining
Tilt-Up Walls activity was completed in the same week as originally planned. The three-week recovery
is shown to highlight that fact. Subsequently, the project experienced a six-week delay to the start of
Beams and Roofing and a two-week delay due to the extended duration of Install Racking. This figure
will be used in the final presentation of the analysis. The total project delay is determined to include
the following:

 Three-week delay to Excavation

 Three-week savings to Remaining Tilt-Up Walls
 Six-week delay to Beams and Roofing
 Two-week delay to Install Racking

Analysis by Comparing the As-Planned and As-Built Schedules on a Periodic Basis

Observational/Static/Periodic Analysis per MIP 3.2

This analysis will be performed based on the method implementation protocol (MIP) described in
Section 3.2 of the RP. The analysis is classified as retrospective because the analysis is performed after
the delay events and the impacts of those events have occurred and the outcome is known. The
analysis is observational because no activities are added or subtracted from the schedule to model
delays or changes to the plan; the progress from the as-built schedule is simply compared to the
original as-planned schedule. The analysis is static because the critical path of the as-planned schedule
is used as the basis for identifying critical delays throughout the project. The analysis is periodic
because the progress in each schedule update is compared sequentially to the as-planned schedule,
and delays are identified during each update period.

It is notable that MIP 3.2 is still considered a static analysis technique, even though the updates will be
used in the analysis. This is because the analysis will proceed based on the critical path from the as-
planned schedule. There is an inherent assumption that the parties had an agreed-upon plan with
which to execute the work, and the contractor based its pricing and performance on that plan. The
contractor prepared the plan; the owner reviewed it, provided comments, and ultimately approved it.
Both the contractor and owner agreed that the critical path shown in the plan was the critical path of
the project.

MIP 3.2 recommends the implementation of the same SVPs as MIP 3.1. Again, for the purpose of this
analysis, assume that all of the source documentation provided has been reviewed and determined to
be valid. The analysis begins with a comparison of the as-planned schedule to the first update, as
shown in figure 9.

CDR.493.19
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
As-Planned v. Update 1 Progress Activity-Level Variances
Period Total
Week Planned Planned Actual Actual Start Finish Duration Duration
Activity ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Start Finish Start Finish Variance Variance Variance Variance

PROJECT MILESTONES PROJECT MILESTONES

As-Planned
M100 Project Start M100 Project Start 1 1 0 N/A N/A

M990 Project Finish M990 Project Finish 16 TBD TBD N/A N/A

As-Built
M100 Project Start

STOREHOUSE STOREHOUSE

As-Planned
S100 2 2 Excavation S100 Excavation 1 2 1 TBD 0 TBD 2 TBD

S110 2 2 Foundation S110 Foundation 3 4 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S120 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall S120 Tilt-Up Joining Wall 5 5 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S130 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls S130 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls 6 9 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S140 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing S140 Beams & Roofing 10 12 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S150 1 Select Racking System S150 Select Racking System 1 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S160 2 2 2 Install Racking S160 Install Racking 13 15 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S170 2 Punchlist S170 Punchlist 16 16 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

As-Built
S100 3 3 3 3 Excavation

RECEPTION RECEPTION

As-Planned
R100 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 1 6 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

R110 1 1 Reception Walls R110 Reception Walls 6 7 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

R120 1 1 1 Reception Roof R120 Reception Roof 7 9 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

R130 1 1 Install Docking Unit R130 Install Docking Unit 10 11 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

As-Built
No progress this period

Figure 9 — As-Planned v. Update 1 Progress with ALVs for Period

In reviewing each period, the analyst can identify any ALVs that occur during the period. Those values
are tabulated on the right side of figure 9. Values determined in this step of the analysis are highlighted
in yellow in the table. During the first period, the Project Start milestone occurred, and Excavation
began. The milestone began as planned, so the ALVs is zero. Duration variances are not applicable to
milestone activities, and are marked “N/A” on the right side of figure 9.

Excavation began as planned, and its actual start date is reported on the right side of figure 9. The start
variance is reported as zero. Excavation had a planned duration of two weeks, and it had an actual
duration of four weeks by the end of the period. Therefore, its duration variance for the period is
reported as two weeks. The activity was incomplete at the end of the period, so its total duration
variance is to be determined and is marked “TBD” in the table. No other activities made progress
during the period analyzed in figure 9.

CDR.493.20
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
As-Planned v. Update 2 Progress Activity-Level Variances
Period Total
Week Planned Planned Actual Actual Start Finish Duration Duration
Activity ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Start Finish Start Finish Variance Variance Variance Variance

PROJECT MILESTONES PROJECT MILESTONES

As-Planned
M100 Project Start M100 Project Start 1 1 0 N/A N/A

M990 Project Finish M990 Project Finish 16 TBD TBD N/A N/A

As-Built
M100 Project Start

STOREHOUSE STOREHOUSE

As-Planned
S100 2 2 Excavation S100 Excavation 1 2 1 5 0 3 1 3

S110 2 2 Foundation S110 Foundation 3 4 6 7 3 3 0 0

S120 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall S120 Tilt-Up Joining Wall 5 5 8 8 3 3 0 0

S130 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls S130 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls 6 9 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S140 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing S140 Beams & Roofing 10 12 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S150 1 Select Racking System S150 Select Racking System 1 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S160 2 2 2 Install Racking S160 Install Racking 13 15 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S170 2 Punchlist S170 Punchlist 16 16 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

As-Built
S100 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

S110 3 3 Foundation

S120 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

RECEPTION RECEPTION

As-Planned
R100 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 1 6 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

R110 1 1 Reception Walls R110 Reception Walls 6 7 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

R120 1 1 1 Reception Roof R120 Reception Roof 7 9 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

R130 1 1 Install Docking Unit R130 Install Docking Unit 10 11 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

As-Built
No progress this period

Figure 10 — As-Planned v. Update 2 Progress with ALVs for Period

In the second period, Excavation is finished, and the Foundation and Tilt-Up Joining Wall activities both
started and finished. Figure 10 shows the as-built schedule for the completed Excavation activity and
the two additional activities. The associated ALVs are tabulated on the right. There is an additional one-
week delay in this period associated with the extended duration of Excavation. Its original planned
duration was two weeks. That duration had already been overrun by two weeks in Period 1. The
additional one week in Period 2 brings the cumulative duration variance to a total of three weeks. This
appears to be the same three weeks associated with the start and finish variances on the Foundation
and Tilt-Up Joining Wall activities.

CDR.493.21
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
As-Planned v. Update 3 Progress Activity-Level Variances
Period Total
Week Planned Planned Actual Actual Start Finish Duration Duration
Activity ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Start Finish Start Finish Variance Variance Variance Variance

PROJECT MILESTONES PROJECT MILESTONES

As-Planned
M100 Project Start M100 Project Start 1 1 0 N/A N/A

M990 Project Finish M990 Project Finish 16 TBD TBD N/A N/A

As-Built
M100 Project Start

STOREHOUSE STOREHOUSE

As-Planned
S100 2 2 Excavation S100 Excavation 1 2 1 5 0 3 0 3

S110 2 2 Foundation S110 Foundation 3 4 6 7 3 3 0 0

S120 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall S120 Tilt-Up Joining Wall 5 5 8 8 3 3 0 0

S130 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls S130 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls 6 9 9 9 3 0 (3) (3)

S140 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing S140 Beams & Roofing 10 12 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S150 1 Select Racking System S150 Select Racking System 1 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S160 2 2 2 Install Racking S160 Install Racking 13 15 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S170 2 Punchlist S170 Punchlist 16 16 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

As-Built
S100 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

S110 3 3 Foundation

S120 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

RECEPTION RECEPTION

As-Planned
R100 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 1 6 12 TBD 11 TBD 0 TBD

R110 1 1 Reception Walls R110 Reception Walls 6 7 9 TBD 3 TBD 2 TBD

R120 1 1 1 Reception Roof R120 Reception Roof 7 9 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

R130 1 1 Install Docking Unit R130 Install Docking Unit 10 11 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

As-Built
R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 3

R110 3 3 3 3 Reception Walls

Figure 11 — As-Planned v. Update 3 Progress with ALVs for Period

Figure 11 shows the three weeks of recovery achieved by completing the Remaining Tilt-Up Walls more
quickly than originally planned. Comparing the as-planned critical path to the as-built path in the
Storehouse, the analyst can see that the critical path is back on schedule by the end of Week 9. Work
has also started in the Reception area, which was not on the critical path in the baseline schedule. The
project records indicated that there was some concern regarding the fabrication of the docking unit,
but they also indicated that the contractor was working with the supplier to expedite delivery. In any
event, the project is not ready for the docking unit. More importantly, the critical Beams and Roofing
activity did not begin immediately after the finish of Remaining Tilt-Up Walls. The magnitude of the
delay associated with the start of roofing will be assessed in the next period, when work on that
activity begins.

CDR.493.22
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
As-Planned v. Update 4 Progress Activity-Level Variances
Period Total
Week Planned Planned Actual Actual Start Finish Duration Duration
Activity ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Start Finish Start Finish Variance Variance Variance Variance

PROJECT MILESTONES PROJECT MILESTONES

As-Planned
M100 Project Start M100 Project Start 1 1 0 N/A N/A

M990 Project Finish M990 Project Finish 16 TBD TBD N/A N/A

As-Built
M100 Project Start

STOREHOUSE STOREHOUSE

As-Planned
S100 2 2 Excavation S100 Excavation 1 2 1 5 0 3 0 3

S110 2 2 Foundation S110 Foundation 3 4 6 7 3 3 0 0

S120 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall S120 Tilt-Up Joining Wall 5 5 8 8 3 3 0 0

S130 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls S130 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls 6 9 9 9 3 0 0 (3)

S140 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing S140 Beams & Roofing 10 12 16 TBD 6 TBD 0 TBD

S150 1 Select Racking System S150 Select Racking System 1 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S160 2 2 2 Install Racking S160 Install Racking 13 15 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

S170 2 Punchlist S170 Punchlist 16 16 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

As-Built
S100 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

S110 3 3 Foundation

S120 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S140 3 Beams & Roofing

RECEPTION RECEPTION

As-Planned
R100 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 1 6 12 TBD 11 TBD 0 TBD

R110 1 1 Reception Walls R110 Reception Walls 6 7 9 15 3 8 3 5

R120 1 1 1 Reception Roof R120 Reception Roof 7 9 16 TBD 9 TBD 0 TBD

R130 1 1 Install Docking Unit R130 Install Docking Unit 10 11 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

As-Built
R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3

R110 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reception Walls

R120 3 Reception Roof

Figure 12 — As-Planned v. Update 4 Progress with ALVs for Period

Figure 12 shows the analysis of the fourth period. The start of Beams and Roofing was delayed six
weeks, and this appears to be a critical path delay. Meanwhile, progress in Reception continued, and
delivery of the docking unit appears to be imminent. Based on the project records, the dimensional
issues that caused the delay to Beams and Roofing have been resolved through modifications to the
roof structure and panels, and installation of the roof system began in Week 16, as shown.

CDR.493.23
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
As-Planned v. Update 5 Progress Activity-Level Variances
Period Total
Week Planned Planned Actual Actual Start Finish Duration Duration
Activity ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Start Finish Start Finish Variance Variance Variance Variance

PROJECT MILESTONES PROJECT MILESTONES

As-Planned
M100 Project Start M100 Project Start 1 1 0 N/A N/A

M990 Project Finish M990 Project Finish 16 TBD TBD N/A N/A

As-Built
M100 Project Start

STOREHOUSE STOREHOUSE

As-Planned
S100 2 2 Excavation S100 Excavation 1 2 1 5 0 3 1 3

S110 2 2 Foundation S110 Foundation 3 4 6 7 3 3 0 0

S120 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall S120 Tilt-Up Joining Wall 5 5 8 8 3 3 0 0

S130 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls S130 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls 6 9 9 9 3 0 0 (3)

S140 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing S140 Beams & Roofing 10 12 16 18 6 6 0 0

S150 1 Select Racking System S150 Select Racking System 1 1 18 18 17 17 0 0

S160 2 2 2 Install Racking S160 Install Racking 13 15 19 TBD 6 TBD 0 TBD

S170 2 Punchlist S170 Punchlist 16 16 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

As-Built
S100 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

S110 3 3 Foundation

S120 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S140 3 3 3 Beams & Roofing

S150 Select Racking System 3

S160 Install Racking 3 3

RECEPTION RECEPTION

As-Planned
R100 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 1 6 12 17 11 11 0 0

R110 1 1 Reception Walls R110 Reception Walls 6 7 9 15 3 8 0 5

R120 1 1 1 Reception Roof R120 Reception Roof 7 9 16 17 9 8 (1) (1)

R130 1 1 Install Docking Unit R130 Install Docking Unit 10 11 18 TBD 8 TBD 1 TBD

As-Built
R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

R110 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reception Walls

R120 3 3 Reception Roof

R130 Install Docking Unit 3 3 3

Figure 13 — As-Planned v. Update 5 Progress with ALVs for Period

Figure 13 shows that the Beams and Roofing activity was completed within its planned duration.
Meanwhile, work in Reception continued, and the roof in that area was completed in one week less
than its planned duration. The docking unit was delivered, and installation is under way. Installation
has overrun its duration by one week, but that week appears to have been mitigated by the better-
than-planned progress on Roofing. Both areas of the project are complete except for Install Racking,
Install Docking Unit, and Punchlist. The project is already four weeks past its planned completion date.
Based on project documentation, the project is expected to finish in another two weeks.

CDR.493.24
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
As-Planned v. Update 6 (As-Built) Progress Activity-Level Variances
Period Total
Week Planned Planned Actual Actual Start Finish Duration Duration
Activity ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Start Finish Start Finish Variance Variance Variance Variance

PROJECT MILESTONES PROJECT MILESTONES

As-Planned
M100 Project Start M100 Project Start 1 1 0 N/A N/A

M990 Project Finish M990 Project Finish 16 24 8 N/A N/A

As-Built
M100 Project Start

M990 Project Finish

STOREHOUSE STOREHOUSE

As-Planned
S100 2 2 Excavation S100 Excavation 1 2 1 5 0 3 1 3

S110 2 2 Foundation S110 Foundation 3 4 6 7 3 3 0 0

S120 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall S120 Tilt-Up Joining Wall 5 5 8 8 3 3 0 0

S130 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls S130 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls 6 9 9 9 3 0 0 (3)

S140 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing S140 Beams & Roofing 10 12 16 18 6 6 0 0

S150 1 Select Racking System S150 Select Racking System 1 1 18 18 17 17 0 0

S160 2 2 2 Install Racking S160 Install Racking 13 15 19 23 6 8 2 2

S170 2 Punchlist S170 Punchlist 16 16 24 24 8 8 0 0

As-Built
S100 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

S110 3 3 Foundation

S120 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

S140 3 3 3 Beams & Roofing

S150 Select Racking System 3

S160 Install Racking 3 3 3 3 3

S170 Punchlist 3

RECEPTION RECEPTION

As-Planned
R100 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 1 6 12 17 11 11 0 0

R110 1 1 Reception Walls R110 Reception Walls 6 7 9 15 3 8 0 5

R120 1 1 1 Reception Roof R120 Reception Roof 7 9 16 17 9 8 (1) (1)

R130 1 1 Install Docking Unit R130 Install Docking Unit 10 11 18 23 8 12 3 4

As-Built
R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

R110 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reception Walls

R120 3 3 Reception Roof

R130 Install Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

Figure 14 — As-Planned v. As-Built Progress with ALVs for Period

As shown in figure 14, it actually took four weeks to complete the project, instead of two as forecast in
the project documentation available from Week 20 (and the schedule update from Week 20.) The
additional two weeks of delay appear to be because of the extended duration of the Install Racking and
Install Docking Unit activities, concurrently. Both activities were completed in Week 23. Then Punchlist
work was completed within its planned one week duration, and the project was completed in Week 24.
All periods have now been analyzed; the ALV table has been fully populated; all available project
documentation has been reviewed; and the analyst is now ready to summarize the results of the
analysis.

CDR.493.25
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

Activity-Level Variances

Planned Planned Actual Actual Start Finish Duration

Start Finish Start Finish Variance Variance Variance

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 Project Start 1 1 0 N/A

M990 Project Finish 16 24 8 N/A

STOREHOUSE

S100 Excavation 1 2 1 5 0 3 3

S110 Foundation 3 4 6 7 3 3 0

S120 Tilt-Up Joining Wall 5 5 8 8 3 3 0

S130 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls 6 9 9 9 3 0 (3)

S140 Beams & Roofing 10 12 16 18 6 6 0

S150 Select Racking System 1 1 18 18 17 17 0

S160 Install Racking 13 15 19 23 6 8 2

S170 Punchlist 16 16 24 24 8 8 0

RECEPTION

R100 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 1 6 12 17 11 11 0

R110 Reception Walls 6 7 9 15 3 8 5

R120 Reception Roof 7 9 16 17 9 8 (1)

R130 Install Docking Unit 10 11 18 23 8 12 4

Table 3 — Completed Activity-Level Variance Table for MIP 3.2

The completed ALV table created in MIP 3.2 consolidates the variances identified in all periods. In fact,
it is identical to the ALV table created for MIP 3.1. It was simply populated through a step-by-step
process in MIP 3.2. With the project records and the analysis of each period, initial conclusions can be
presented as to the delays that occurred during each period. For example:

 Period 1—Critical Excavation began, but progress was delayed by two weeks because of
unforeseen underground site conditions associated with the removal and remediation
of a UST.

CDR.493.26
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
 Period 2—Critical Excavation was delayed by one additional week; critical Foundation
and Tilt-Up Joining Wall activities were delayed by the extended duration of Excavation,
but once they started, they were completed with no additional delay.
 Period 3—Critical Remaining Tilt-Up Walls were expedited to recover the prior delay.
Reception Walls were also proceeding. Critical Beams and Roofing did not begin as
planned. No critical path work was performed during the last two weeks of the period.
However, work in the Reception area proceeded.
 Period 4—The delay to Critical Beams and Roofing because of dimensional errors
continued until Week 16. As that work should have started in Week 10, this was a total
six-week delay by the end of Period 4. Work in the Reception area continued.
 Period 5—Beams and Roofing work was completed within its planned duration. Final
details regarding the racking system were resolved with the owner in the same week
that roof work was completed, so that Racking Installation could proceed the following
week. The Reception area was completed, except for the Docking Unit.
 Period 6—Install Racking took two weeks longer than originally planned, and Install
Docking Unit took four weeks longer than originally planned. Those were the last two
activities to be completed prior to punchlist. They were both completed in Week 23, but
the extended durations caused an additional two weeks of delay. While Install Docking
Unit was not on the as-planned critical path, everything was critical at this point,
because the project should have been completed in Week 16. Therefore, the delays
associated with the racking system and docking unit were considered to be concurrent.
In fact, a review of the project documentation shows that both activities were delayed
by electrical work, which was performed by another contractor. Once they were
completed, Punchlist was completed as planned, and the project was completed in
Week 24.

Some analysts might disagree with some of these statements based on critical path concepts. They
might argue that there is nothing in the analysis that justifies the determination of which activities are
critical. In fact, they might argue that the analysis does not take into account the “dynamic nature of
the critical path,” even though it is divided into periods and presented in a manner that might be called
a “windows analysis” by some practitioners. It is true that the analysis does not take the dynamic
nature of the critical path into account. It is a static analysis, based on the concept presented at the
beginning of this section—the owner and contractor had an understanding as to what was critical on
the project, and they documented that understanding at the beginning of the project through their
development, review, and agreement on the project schedule.

One party might argue that the analysis did not address significant delays to some activities in
Reception; and the other party might argue that the Reception work was never critical, and could have
been expedited if it had become critical. If this analysis were to be presented in a legal forum, the
analyst would likely want to consult with counsel as to whether there exists precedent that requires an
analyst to recognize the critical path as dynamic in an analysis such as this one. However, in a forum
where a contract time extension is to be negotiated (as opposed to litigated), this analysis may be
compelling if presented by persons knowledgeable of the events that occurred during each period of
the project.

CDR.493.27
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Another criticism of this analysis might be based on the fact that the remaining work from the as-
planned schedule should be pushed to the right as each periodic analysis begins. From one
perspective, it is confusing to compare the as-built schedule to the original as-planned schedule once
delays have occurred. Rescheduling incomplete work at the end of each period would classify this as a
dynamic analysis, and critical path shifts would need to be considered each time the remaining work is
rescheduled. That technique is covered under MIP 3.3 in the RP, and an analysis of this project using
the technique was presented in 2008 [2].

Analysis by Removing Delay Events from the As-Built Schedule

Modeled/Subtractive Single-Simulation Analysis per MIP 3.8

This analysis will be performed based on the method implementation protocol (MIP) described in
Section 3.8 of the RP. The analysis is classified as retrospective because the analysis is performed after
the delay events and the impacts of those events have occurred and the outcome is known. The
analysis is modeled because activities modeling the delay events are inserted into the as-built
schedule. Then they are subtracted to collapse the as-built schedule. The analysis is a single-simulation
because the delays are extracted in one period—between the as-planned and as-built schedules.
Although the delays may be extracted in a particular order, no specific effort is made to divide the
analysis into periods or reproduce the status of the project as it was shown in the intermediate
updates.

MIP 3.8 recommends the implementation of SVPs 2.2 (as-built validation) and 2.4 (delay ID and
quantification). For the purpose of the analysis, the as-built has been validated. Delays will be
identified and quantified in the initial steps of the analysis. MIP 3.8 states that SVPs 2.1 (baseline
validation) and 2.3 (update validation) can be performed in an “enhanced implementation.” Similar to
the other MIPs covered for this example, assume that all data sources have been validated and
deemed to be reliable.

After listing the relevant SVPs, MIP 3.8 lists a series of six points under the heading “Recommended
Implementation Protocols” and three more points under “Enhanced Implementation Protocols. All of
these points were taken into consideration in performing the example analysis. One point was
determined not to be relevant to the example. Namely, no calendar was incorporated into the as-built
schedule to model actual weather conditions. For the purpose of the analysis, weather conditions have
been determined to be “normal” and had no impact on the project during its 24-week duration.

The analysis begins with the as-built schedule shown in figure 3. Network fragments (“fragnets”) are
then created to model each of the delaying events on the project, and these fragnets are inserted into
the as-built schedule and logically tied so that the delay activities are linked to the activities that they
affected. Based on a review of the project documents, the delays are identified and the fragnets
created. The fragnets are similar to those that were used in the presentation of MIP 3.7 in 2008 [2].
One key difference is that all activities in the fragnets in MIP 3.8 are added to the schedule in the as-
built condition. Another key difference is that the durations have been extended in some cases (as
compared to the fragnets used in MIP 3.7) to facilitate collapsing the schedule.

CDR.493.28
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Delay A—Discovery of UST (differing site condition), testing, removal, and mitigation— Excavation
began as planned in Week 1. However, at the end of the week, an underground storage was
discovered in the building footprint. Excavation proceeded, but was suspended in the area of the
storage tank. One week was spent testing the surrounding soil for contamination and developing
appropriate remediation efforts. Then, two weeks were spent removing the UST and contaminated soil
before completing excavation activities. Fragnet A was developed to model the work associated with
the UST, as shown in figure 15. Activities that are added are highlighted in the figures (light blue). The
other activities shown in the fragnet graphics are included to show logical ties between the fragnet
activities and existing schedule activities. That information is noted in the Successors column.

Fragnet A
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 0 0 A100 (SS0) Project Start

A100 1 0 A110 3 Test for Contamination

A110 2 0 S100 (FF1) 3 3 Remove UST

Figure 15 — Fragnet A

Delay B—Docking unit supplier delay—Fabrication of the docking unit was initially scheduled to begin
in Week 1. Based on review of project documentation, the contractor’s supplier indicated that it would
not begin fabricating the docking unit until Week 11 because its factory was operating at capacity on
other projects. The supplier wrote a letter to the contractor detailing the delay at the start of Week 5.
Through continued communications with the supplier, the contractor learns that the fabricator actually
begins work in Week 12. Fragnet B was developed to model the delay, as shown in figure 16. Although
the supplier’s letter indicated that it would delay the start of fabrication from Week 1 to Week 11, the
supplier did not actually begin fabrication until Week 12. Therefore, the delay is modeled as continuing
through Week 11.

Fragnet B
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROJECT MILESTONES

B100 6 0 R100 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Docking Unit Supplier Delay

Figure 16 — Fragnet B

Delay C—Drawing dimension discrepancies and field modifications of roof system—Based on project
documentation, structural steel arrived on site at the start of Week 13. The steel was fabricated in
accordance with the contract drawings and the accepted shop drawings. However, when the erected
tilt-up panels were surveyed, it was determined that there was an error in the contract drawings that
caused numerous roof members and metal roof panels to be fabricated too long. The specifications
contain a pre-approved procedure for cutting the steel members in the field. However, the
specifications do not allow metal roof panels to be field cut or bent, and the owner will not waive that
requirement because it would void the roof warranty. Thus, the panels will be returned to the supplier
for modification. The field cutting of structural steel is expected to take one week, but the panel

CDR.493.29
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
modifications are expected to take four weeks. The panels will be shipped in two partial deliveries in
order to minimize the delay. The first half will be returned to the project site at the end of the second
week, and the second half will be returned at the end of the fourth week. Fragnet C was developed to
model the delay, as shown in figure 17.

Fragnet C
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROJECT MILESTONES

S130 4 0 S140, C100 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

C100 3 0 C110, C120 3 3 3 Field Survey Tilt-Up Walls

C110 1 0 S140 3 Field Cut Structural Steel

C120 4 0 S140 (SS2, FF2) 3 3 3 3 Modify Roof Panels

Figure 17 — Fragnet C

Delay D—Installation of electrical and inventory systems for racking system—At the start of Week 21,
the owner informed the contractor that it had expected general contract work to be complete by now.
The owner had scheduled an electrical contractor to install a computerized receiving and inventory
system during Weeks 21 and 22. The electrical contractor will occupy the majority of the docking area
and storehouse during that time. Fragnet D was developed to model the delay, as shown in figure 18.

Fragnet D
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROJECT MILESTONES

D100 2 0 S160 (FF1) Electrical/Inventory Systems Installation 3 3

R130 (FF1)

Figure 18 — Fragnet D

Fragnets A through D are added into the as-built schedule, resulting in the model shown in figure 19.

CDR.493.30
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
As-Built Schedule Including Fragnets A through D
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROJECT MILESTONES

M100 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start

A100 (SS0)

M990 0 0 Project Finish

STOREHOUSE

S100 2 0 S110 3 3 3 3 3 Excavation

A100 1 0 A110 3 Test for Contamination

A110 2 0 S100 (FF1) 3 3 Remove UST

S110 2 0 S120 3 3 Foundation

S120 1 0 R110, S130 3 Tilt-Up Joining Wall

S130 4 0 S140 3 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls

C100 3 0 C110, C120 3 3 3 Field Survey Tilt-Up Walls

C110 1 0 S140 3 Field Cut Structural Steel

C120 4 0 S140 (SS2, FF2) 3 3 3 3 Modify Roof Panels

S140 3 0 S160 3 3 3 Beams & Roofing

S150 1 0 S160 Select Racking System 3

D100 2 0 S160 (FF1) Electrical/Inventory Systems Installation 3 3

R130 (FF1)

S160 3 0 S170 Install Racking 3 3 3 3 3

S170 1 0 M990 Punchlist 3

RECEPTION

B100 11 0 R100 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Docking Unit Supplier Delay

R100 6 0 R130 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

R110 3 0 R120 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reception Walls

R120 2 0 R130 3 3 Reception Roof

R130 2 0 S170 Install Docking Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3

Figure 19 — As-Built Schedule Including Fragnets A through D

Once the fragnets are added to the as-built schedule, the next step is to “de-status” the schedule so
that CPM calculations can be performed. This step is necessary when using many commercial CPM
packages because much of the software overwrites or deletes data produced in the network
calculation once actual dates have been reported for the activities. While some packages maintain this
data, most accounts of MIP 3.8—often referred to as a collapsed-as-built analysis—employ some
method of de-statusing the schedule.

To de-status the schedule, several steps are taken. The remaining duration of each activity is set to the
actual duration, and the data date is moved back to the beginning of Week 1. In most cases, the logic
of the schedule, including the fragnets, keeps each activity scheduled on the actual dates on which it
occurred. However, in a few cases, there is no logical tie that drives an activity to be performed on the

CDR.493.31
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
dates that it actually occurred. In order to match the as-built dates, some analysts insert lags. In this
case, early start constraints were used to match dates.

In addition, a suspension period was introduced into the Excavation activity to show that it could not
proceed during the testing and removal of the UST. This was done because the testing began as a
successor to the start of Excavation, but was concluded as a predecessor to the finish of Excavation.
Many software packages cannot calculate a network with this type of relationship, as it will be
considered a loop. Instead, the Excavation activity was shown as suspended. When the delay
associated with the testing and UST is removed from the schedule (collapsed), the suspension of the
Excavation activity will be removed. Suspension periods were also introduced into the Install Racking
and Install Docking Unit activities to better depict the fact that those activities did not proceed during
the owner’s electrical work.

De-Statused As-Built Schedule

Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors Constraints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROJECT MILESTONES
M100 0 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start
A100 (SS0)
M990 0 0 0 Project Finish
STOREHOUSE
S100 2 2 0 S110 Suspended 2-4 2 2 Excavation
A100 1 1 0 A110 Early Start @ 2 2 Test for Contamination
A110 2 2 0 S100 (FF1) 2 2 Remove UST
S110 2 2 0 S120 2 2 Foundation
S120 1 1 0 R110, S130 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall
S130 4 1 0 S140 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls
C100 3 3 0 C110, C120 2 2 2 Field Survey Tilt-Up Walls
C110 1 1 0 S140 2 Field Cut Structural Steel
C120 4 4 0 S140 (SS2, FF2) 2 2 2 2 Modify Roof Panels
S140 3 3 0 S160 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing
S150 1 1 0 S160 Early Start @ 18 Select Racking System 2
D100 2 2 0 S160 (FF1) Early Start @ 21 Electrical/Inventory Systems Installation 2 2
R130 (FF1)
S160 3 3 0 S170 Suspended 21-22 Install Racking 2 2 2
S170 1 1 0 M990 Punchlist 2
RECEPTION
B100 11 11 0 R100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Docking Unit Supplier Delay
R100 6 6 0 R130 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 2 2 2 2 2 2
R110 3 7 0 R120 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Reception Walls
R120 2 2 0 R130 2 2 Reception Roof
R130 2 4 0 S170 Suspended 21-22 Install Docking Unit 2 2 2 2

Figure 20 — De-Statused As-Built Schedule

It is notable that every activity in the de-statused as-built is critical. It is not uncommon to have many
critical activities prior to collapsing an as-built schedule. This is because every gap in the schedule could
potentially be filled with some delaying event, even if the event is simply waiting for one party to begin
work. The more gaps in the schedule are filled, the more critical activities there will be in the schedule.
The schedule for the example project is relatively simple, with only two logic paths. In the as-built
schedule, both of those logic paths are on the as-built critical path.
CDR.493.32
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Once the schedule has been de-statused, the collapse can proceed. The first delay removed from the
schedule is the delay associated with the owner’s electrical work during Weeks 21 and 22. The delay is
removed by removing Fragnet D and the suspensions on Install Racking and Install Docking Unit. The
result is shown in figure 21.

Collapsed As-Built with First Delay Removed

Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors Constraints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROJECT MILESTONES
M100 0 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start
A100 (SS0)
M990 0 0 0 Project Finish
STOREHOUSE
S100 2 2 0 S110 Suspended 2-4 2 2 Excavation
A100 1 1 0 A110 Early Start @ 2 2 Test for Contamination
A110 2 2 0 S100 (FF1) 2 2 Remove UST
S110 2 2 0 S120 2 2 Foundation
S120 1 1 0 R110, S130 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall
S130 4 1 0 S140 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls
C100 3 3 0 C110, C120 2 2 2 Field Survey Tilt-Up Walls
C110 1 1 0 S140 2 Field Cut Structural Steel
C120 4 4 0 S140 (SS2, FF2) 2 2 2 2 Modify Roof Panels
S140 3 3 0 S160 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing
S150 1 1 0 S160 Early Start @ 18 Select Racking System 2
S160 3 3 0 S170 Install Racking 2 2 2
S170 1 1 0 M990 Punchlist 2
RECEPTION
B100 11 11 0 R100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Docking Unit Supplier Delay
R100 6 6 0 R130 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 2 2 2 2 2 2
R110 3 7 0 R120 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Reception Walls
R120 2 2 0 R130 2 2 Reception Roof
R130 2 4 0 S170 Install Docking Unit 2 2 2 2

Figure 21 — Collapsed As-Built with First Delay Removed

After the removal of the delays associated with the electrical contractor, the completion date of the
project changes from Week 24 to Week 22. This implies that the project would have been completed in
Week 22, but for that delay.

CDR.493.33
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Collapsed As-Built with Second Delay Removed
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors Constraints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROJECT MILESTONES
M100 0 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start
A100 (SS0)
M990 0 0 0 Project Finish
STOREHOUSE
S100 2 2 0 S110 Suspended 2-4 2 2 Excavation
A100 1 1 0 A110 Early Start @ 2 2 Test for Contamination
A110 2 2 0 S100 (FF1) 2 2 Remove UST
S110 2 2 0 S120 2 2 Foundation
S120 1 1 0 R110, S130 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall
S130 4 1 0 S140 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls
C100 3 3 0 C110, C120 2 2 2 Field Survey Tilt-Up Walls
C110 1 1 0 S140 2 Field Cut Structural Steel
C120 4 4 0 S140 (SS2, FF2) 2 2 2 2 Modify Roof Panels
S140 3 3 0 S160 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing
S150 1 1 17 S160 1 Select Racking System
S160 3 3 0 S170 Install Racking 2 2 2
S170 1 1 0 M990 Punchlist 2
RECEPTION
B100 11 11 0 R100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Docking Unit Supplier Delay
R100 6 6 0 R130 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 2 2 2 2 2 2
R110 3 7 0 R120 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Reception Walls
R120 2 2 0 R130 2 2 Reception Roof
R130 2 4 0 S170 Install Docking Unit 2 2 2 2

Figure 22 — Collapsed As-Built with Second Delay Removed

Figure 22 shows the second change in collapsing the as-built schedule. The early-start constraint that
maintained the Select Racking System to be scheduled in Week 18 is removed. Select Racking System
falls back to Week 1, where it was in the original as-planned schedule. Its float value (highlighted in
yellow) has also changed. However, there is no savings to the project finish date. This implies that no
time would have been saved by selecting the racking system sooner, and that the later-than-planned
selection did not cause a project delay.

CDR.493.34
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Collapsed As-Built with Third Delay Removed
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors Constraints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROJECT MILESTONES
M100 0 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start
A100 (SS0)
M990 0 0 0 Project Finish
STOREHOUSE
S100 2 2 0 S110 Suspended 2-4 2 2 Excavation
A100 1 1 0 A110 Early Start @ 2 2 Test for Contamination
A110 2 2 0 S100 (FF1) 2 2 Remove UST
S110 2 2 0 S120 2 2 Foundation
S120 1 1 0 R110, S130 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall
S130 4 1 6 S140 1 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls
S140 3 3 6 S160 1 1 1 Beams & Roofing
S150 1 1 17 S160 1 Select Racking System
S160 3 3 6 S170 Install Racking 1 1 1
S170 1 1 0 M990 Punchlist 2
RECEPTION
B100 11 11 0 R100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Docking Unit Supplier Delay
R100 6 6 0 R130 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit 2 2 2 2 2 2
R110 3 7 0 R120 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Reception Walls
R120 2 2 0 R130 2 2 Reception Roof
R130 2 4 0 S170 Install Docking Unit 2 2 2 2

Figure 23 — Collapsed As-Built with Third Delay Removed

Continuing to work back through the project schedule, the third delay removed is the delay associated
with Beams and Roofing. Removal of the activities for Field Survey Tilt-Up Walls, Field Cut Structural
Steel, and Modify Roof Panels allows Beams and Roofing to be scheduled immediately after the
Remaining Tilt-Up Walls. In fact, if not for the dimensional issues, the Beams and Roofing activity was
planned to proceed after the tilt-up walls.

Although removing the field survey and modification activities results in a six-week savings to the
Beams and Roofing activity and its successor, Install Racking, there is no overall project savings.
Removing the delay does nothing more than create six weeks of float for that group of activities. This is
because the Excavation and Docking Unit Supplier Delay are both driving paths of activities that will
still take 22 weeks to complete.

CDR.493.35
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Collapsed As-Built with Fourth Delay Removed
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors Constraints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROJECT MILESTONES
M100 0 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start
A100 (SS0)
M990 0 0 0 Project Finish
STOREHOUSE
S100 2 2 0 S110 Suspended 2-4 2 2 Excavation
A100 1 1 0 A110 Early Start @ 2 2 Test for Contamination
A110 2 2 0 S100 (FF1) 2 2 Remove UST
S110 2 2 0 S120 2 2 Foundation
S120 1 1 0 R110, S130 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall
S130 4 1 6 S140 1 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls
S140 3 3 6 S160 1 1 1 Beams & Roofing
S150 1 1 17 S160 1 Select Racking System
S160 3 3 6 S170 Install Racking 1 1 1
S170 1 1 0 M990 Punchlist 2
RECEPTION
R100 6 6 11 R130 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit
R110 3 7 0 R120 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Reception Walls
R120 2 2 0 R130 2 2 Reception Roof
R130 2 4 0 S170 Install Docking Unit 2 2 2 2

Figure 24 — Collapsed As-Built with Fourth Delay Removed

The fourth delay removed from the project schedule is the Docking Unit Supplier Delay. Removing that
delay results in the schedule shown in figure 24. Again, there is no overall project savings as there is
still a path of activities that will take 22 weeks to complete.

Collapsed As-Built with Fifth Delay Removed

Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors Constraints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROJECT MILESTONES
M100 0 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start
M990 0 0 0 Project Finish
STOREHOUSE
S100 2 2 0 S110 2 2 Excavation
S110 2 2 0 S120 2 2 Foundation
S120 1 1 0 R110, S130 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall
S130 4 1 6 S140 1 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls
S140 3 3 6 S160 1 1 1 Beams & Roofing
S150 1 1 14 S160 1 Select Racking System
S160 3 3 6 S170 Install Racking 1 1 1
S170 1 1 0 M990 Punchlist 2
RECEPTION
R100 6 6 8 R130 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit
R110 3 7 0 R120 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Reception Walls
R120 2 2 0 R130 2 2 Reception Roof
R130 2 4 0 S170 Install Docking Unit 2 2 2 2

Figure 25 — Collapsed As-Built with Fifth Delay Removed

CDR.493.36
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
The fifth delay removed from the project schedule is the delay to Excavation because of UST removal.
The delay activities are removed, along with the suspension period on the Excavation Activity that was
in the model. Removing the UST delay results in a savings of three weeks, and the project completion
date moves back to Week 19.

All delay activities have now been removed from the model, but the schedule still shows a three-week
delay, when compared to the original as-planned schedule. As shown in figure 25, the remaining delay
appears to be because of the extended duration of the Install Docking Unit and Reception Walls
activities. Install Docking Unit overran its duration by two weeks, even once the delay associated with
the electrical work was removed. The preceding Reception Walls activity overran its duration by four
weeks.

Collapsed As-Built with Extended Durations Removed

Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors Constraints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROJECT MILESTONES
M100 0 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start
M990 0 0 0 Project Finish
STOREHOUSE
S100 2 2 0 S110 2 2 Excavation
S110 2 2 0 S120 2 2 Foundation
S120 1 1 0 R110, S130 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall
S130 4 1 0 S140 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls
S140 3 3 0 S160 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing
S150 1 1 8 S160 1 Select Racking System
S160 3 3 0 S170 Install Racking 2 2 2
S170 1 1 0 M990 Punchlist 2
RECEPTION
R100 6 6 4 R130 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit
R110 3 3 0 R120 2 2 2 Reception Walls
R120 2 2 0 R130 2 2 Reception Roof
R130 2 2 0 S170 2 2 Install Docking Unit

Figure 26 — Collapsed As-Built with Extended Durations Removed

Removing the extended durations results in a schedule that would have completed in 13 weeks, as
opposed to the 19 weeks shown in figure 25. That would imply that the extended durations caused six
weeks of delay, but the project was scheduled to take 16 weeks in the as-planned schedule. Recalling
that the Remaining Tilt-Up Walls activity was completed three weeks faster than planned, we can
understand the discrepancy.

CDR.493.37
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Collapsed As-Built with Remaining Tilt-Up Walls Duration Restored
Original Remaining Week
Activity ID Duration Duration Total Float Successors Constraints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROJECT MILESTONES
M100 0 0 0 S100, S150, R100 Project Start
M990 0 0 0 Project Finish
STOREHOUSE
S100 2 2 0 S110 2 2 Excavation
S110 2 2 0 S120 2 2 Foundation
S120 1 1 0 R110, S130 2 Tilt-Up Joining Wall
S130 4 4 0 S140 2 2 2 2 Remaining Tilt-Up Walls
S140 3 3 0 S160 2 2 2 Beams & Roofing
S150 1 1 11 S160 1 Select Racking System
S160 3 3 0 S170 Install Racking 2 2 2
S170 1 1 0 M990 Punchlist 2
RECEPTION
R100 6 6 7 R130 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fab/Deliver Docking Unit
R110 3 3 3 R120 1 1 1 Reception Walls
R120 2 2 3 R130 1 1 Reception Roof
R130 2 2 3 S170 1 1 Install Docking Unit

Figure 27 — Collapsed As-Built with Remaining Tilt-Up Walls Duration Restored

Restoring the duration of Remaining Tilt-Up Walls drives the project finish date back to Week 16.
Therefore, the better-than-planned progress of Remaining Tilt-Up Walls appears to have resulted in a
three-week savings to the project completion date. Once this last change is made to the as-built
schedule, it now matches the as-planned schedule. In fact, it is identical to the as-planned schedule.
Fully collapsing an as-built schedule does not always result in a schedule that is identical to the as-
planned schedule. However, in this simple case, the analysis has had that result, which might provide a
check that the analysis has been completed thoroughly.

MIP 3.8 recommends that a constructability analysis be performed on the collapsed as-built schedule.
For the example project, it is noted that the logic of the collapsed as-built is the same as the logic of
the as-planned schedule. It is also consistent with the manner in which the project was actually
constructed, although the as-built durations were longer or shorter than the as-planned durations in
some cases. Based on those facts, the collapsed as-built is deemed to represent a constructable plan.
No further constructability analysis is deemed necessary in this instance.

Now that the collapse has been completed, the results of the analysis can be summarized. For
example, the following conclusions might outline the cause of the eight-week project delay:

 Two weeks associated with delays to Install Racking and Install Docking Unit (concurrently)
because of the owner’s electrical contractor
 Three weeks associated with the delay to Excavation due to testing and UST removal
 Two weeks because of slower-than-planned progress of Install Docking Unit (prior to the
mobilization of the owner’s electrical contractor)
 Four weeks because of the slower-than-planned progress of Reception Walls

CDR.493.38
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
 These delays total 11 weeks, but there were three weeks of mitigation due to the better-than-
planned progress of Remaining Tilt-Up Walls, resulting in a net total of eight weeks of project
delay.

Comparison and Commentary

Three separate analyses have been performed on the example project based on three different
Method Implementation Protocols. MIPs 3.1 and 3.2 are similar. They are based on an observational
comparison of the as-planned and as-built schedules. MIP 3.8 has a different approach, focusing on
modeling delays so that they can be subtracted from the as-built schedule. Table 4 compares the
results of the three approaches.

Summary of Delays from Three Analyses

Activity MIP 3.1 MIP 3.2 MIP 3.8
Project Start 0 0 0
Excavation 3 3 3
Foundation 0 0 0
Tilt-Up Joining Wall 0 0 0
Remaining Tilt-Up Walls (3) (3) (3)
Beams & Roofing 6 6 0
Select Racking System 0 0 0
Install Racking 2 2 concurrent 2 concurrent
Fab/Del Docking Unit 0 0 0
Reception Walls 0 0 4
Reception Roof 0 0 0
2
Install Docking Unit 0 2 concurrent
+ 2 concurrent
Punchlist 0 0 0
Project Finish 0 0 0
Total 8 8 8
Table 4 — Summary of Delays from Three Analyses

Based on MIPs 3.1 and 3.2, the delays surrounding the construction of the storage area structure were
found to be the same. Three weeks of delay were associated with Excavation; three weeks of savings
with Remaining Tilt-Up Walls; and six weeks of delay with Beams and Roofing. However, the two MIPs
found different results for the last two weeks of delay. They were associated with Install Racking,
based on MIP 3.1. They were associated concurrently with Install Racking and Install Docking Unit,
based on MIP 3.2. This is interesting, considering that the analysis approach in MIP 3.2 is essentially a
more granular version of the approach in MIP 3.1. Yet, MIP 3.1 found that all delay to the project was
associated with the Storehouse, while MIP 3.2 found that a small portion of the delay was because of
work in Reception.

MIP 3.8 produced the same results for the early part of the project. The delays found through erection
of the Remaining Tilt-Up Walls were found to be the same as those identified in MIPs 3.1 and 3.2.
However, MIP 3.8 produced significantly different results for the later part of the project. No delay was
found to be associated with Beams and Roofing in the Storehouse because of the fact that the
CDR.493.39
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Reception Walls and Install Docking Unit activities in Reception took much longer than planned. Four
weeks of delay were associated with Reception Walls, and two weeks of delay were associated with
Install Docking Unit. The final two weeks of delay were found to be concurrently associated with Install
Racking and Install Docking Unit, similar to what was found in MIP 3.2.

Table 5 presents a simplified summary of the results of the three analyses by distributing the
concurrent delays equally among the associated activities. In other words, the two-week delay that
was concurrently associated with Install Racking and Install Docking Unit was distributed to allocate
one week of delay to each activity. This allows for a simpler presentation. However, the summarized
values include more than one delay factor in some cases. For example, the summary of MIP 3.8 now
shows three weeks of delay associated with Install Docking Unit. However, two of those weeks were
associated with the extended duration of the installation before mobilization of the owner’s electrical
contractor, and one of those weeks was associated with the allocated portion of the two-week delay,
during which the electrical contractor was working and concurrently delaying the completion of Install
Racking and Install Docking Unit.

Simplified Summary of Delays from Three Analyses

Activity MIP 3.1 MIP 3.2 MIP 3.8
Project Start 0 0 0
Excavation 3 3 3
Foundation 0 0 0
Tilt-Up Joining Wall 0 0 0
Remaining Tilt-Up Walls (3) (3) (3)
Beams & Roofing 6 6 0
Select Racking System 0 0 0
Install Racking 2 1 1
Fab/Del Docking Unit 0 0 0
Reception Walls 0 0 4
Reception Roof 0 0 0
Install Docking Unit 0 1 3
Punchlist 0 0 0
Project Finish 0 0 0
Total 8 8 8
Table 5 — Simplified Summary of Delays from Three Analyses

The simplified summary in table 5 is not the most convenient way to summarize delays for
presentation of a responsibility analysis due to the summarization of independent delays to the same
activity. However, it is useful in comparing the results of the multiple analysis techniques in allocating
the eight-week project delay to the activities. Table 6 expands on this comparison by including the
analyses based on MIPs 3.3 and 3.7, which were presented in 2008 [2].

CDR.493.40
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Summary of Delays from Five Analyses
Activity MIP 3.1 MIP 3.2 MIP 3.3 MIP 3.7 MIP 3.8
Project Start 0 0 0 0 0
Excavation 3 3 3 3 3
Foundation 0 0 0 0 0
Tilt-Up Joining Wall 0 0 0 0 0
Remaining Tilt-Up Walls (3) (3) (1) 0 (3)
Beams & Roofing 6 6 1 1.5 0
Select Racking System 0 0 0 0 0
Install Racking 2 1 1 1 1
Fab/Del Docking Unit 0 0 3 1.5 0
Reception Walls 0 0 0 0 4
Reception Roof 0 0 0 0 0
Install Docking Unit 0 1 1 1 3
Punchlist 0 0 0 0 0
Project Finish 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 8 8 8 8
Table 6 — Summary of Delays from Five Analyses

Table 6 shows the differing conclusions that were reached by applying five different analysis
techniques to the same project. Although all techniques found delays whose total correlated with the
overall eight-week project delay, no two analysis techniques allocated the delays to the activities in the
same way. MIPs 3.1 and 3.2 emphasized the significant delay to the roofing in the Storehouse. MIPs 3.3
and 3.7 found that some of the delay during that time was associated with the delayed fabrication of
the docking unit. MIP 3.8 found no delay associated with the roofing due to the slower-than-planned
progress on the Reception Walls during that time.

Conclusion

The differences in the results of the five analyses highlight the importance affect that the analysis
technique can have on the identification of activity delays, especially when delays are occurring on
more than one path of activities. As stated in 2008, “When there are multiple impacts to a project and
many activities are performed later than their original late dates, the partitioning of project delay into
the underlying activity delays can be more easily influenced by the analysis technique chosen. . . . The
best analyses are those that take advantage of the best sources of project information available and
incorporate that information into an objective analysis of the project schedule. In the end, the results
of any analysis must be tied to actual project events to ensure that the model is a fair reflection of
reality *2+.”

The additional analysis of the example project presented here further highlights the fact that two
reasonable analysts are likely to reach somewhat different conclusions if they use different analysis
techniques. The debate as to which analysis techniques provide the best answer in the most situations
is continuing. It is doubtful that there is any one analysis technique that provides the best answer in
every situation. Some of the analysis techniques presented in this paper may be disallowed for use in
certain forums because of legal precedent. However, they may still be used in a presentation to
CDR.493.41
 2011 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
negotiate a contract time extension. The presentation of the particular analysis techniques in this
paper is not meant as an endorsement. Rather, it is meant to provide practitioners with the ability to
compare the merits and failings of each analysis technique presented in RP29R-03, in order to facilitate
debate and lead the community of practitioners to consensus regarding best practices in forensic
schedule analysis.

References

1. Hoshino, K, et al., Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis, AACE
International, Morgantown, WV, (latest revision).
2. Sanders, M., CDR.11 Forensic Schedule Analysis: Example Implementation, AACE International
Transactions, Morgantown, WV, 2008.
3. Zack, J., Schedule Delay Analysis: Is There Agreement? Presentation of example project including
presentation slides, schedules and brief project description, 2003.

Mark C. Sanders, PE CCE PSP

Alpha3 Consulting LLC
[email protected]

CDR.493.42