Final Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects.pdf

1

Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects

Construction SuperConference

Time Impact Analysis®

for Complex Projects

San Francisco, CADecember 2006

Presented by:Robert C. McCue, P.E. of MDCSystems®Patrick J. O'Connor, Jr., Esquire of Faegre & Benson

Session E8 10:45a.m. – 12:00 p.m.Thursday, December 7, 2006

2Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects

The Trouble with Scheduling Analysis

• Complexity• Lack of transparency• Subjectivity• Cost

2


Methodology Problems

• Failure to use or rely on the original schedule: See Pathman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 23392, 85-2 BCA ¶18, 096 (1985).– Two opposing experts produce after-the-facts

schedules (both unreliable).



• Failure to use or rely on the original schedule: See Pathman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 23392, 85-2 BCA ¶18, 096 (1985).– C’s expert labeled the original bar chart as

meaningless and chose to prepared an after-the-fact CPM; because of changes made to original plan by expert, the CPM found unreliable.

3



• Failure to use or rely on the original schedule: See Pathman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 23392, 85-2 BCA ¶18, 096 (1985).– G’s expert created his own schedule, also relied on

C’s schedule and at times referred to the original bar chart and at times applied his own knowledge and beliefs with regard to construction.



• Failure to consider actual performance.• Ealahan Elec. Co., DOT BCA No. 1959, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,

177 (1990).– Opposing experts failed to consider actual

performance.– C’s expert converted a bar chart contract

requirement into a CPM schedule; however, in doing so, failed to account for C’s actual performance.

4



• Failure to consider actual performance.• Ealahan Elec. Co., DOT BCA No. 1959, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,

177 (1990).– A G expert failed to take into consideration reasons

why particular activities were delayed and used approximation techniques for quantifying actual durations (ultimately failed to demonstrate causation).



• Unacceptability of an analysis of as-planned plus impacts. See Titan Pacific Constr. Corp., ASBCA Nos. 24148, 24616, 26692, 87-1BCA ¶ 19, 626 (1987), summary judgment granted, 17 Cl.Ct. 630 (1989), Aff’d 899 F.2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 1990).– C expert prepared A/P schedule plus impacts but

ignored actual performance.

5



• Unacceptability of an analysis of as-planned plus impacts (cont’d).– C’s “like-time” analysis included a revised A/P

schedule (adjusted for seasonal considerations), which produced a different critical path and completion date and then added Owner-caused and weather-related delays to obtain a projected (theoretical) completion date.



• Unacceptability of an analysis of as- planned plus impacts (cont’d).– BD rejected analysis as purely theoretical. See

also, Freeman-Darling, Inc., GSBCA No. 7112, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21, 882 (1989).

6



• Failure to establish correlation between plan, changes, actual performance and contemporaneous records. See Titan Mountain States Constr. Corp., ASBCA No. 23095, 85-1 BCA ¶ 17, 931 (1985). – C’s expert failed to establish causal relationship

between mods and alleged delays attributable to them.



• Failure to establish correlation . . . (cont’d)

– Expert prepared an A/P vs. A/B analysis with a comparison of various updates to show delays.

– BD found that such comparison disclosed only differences between them and not causes of those differences.

– CPM updates alone insufficient to establish that COs caused delay.

7



• Failure to establish correlation . . . (cont’d)

– Expert did not personally examine CPM printouts, quality control and quality assurance reports or payrolls (only cursorily reviewed project correspondence and other documents and had no contact with any of the subs).



• Failure to consider one’s own delays. See Gulf Constr., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 30195, 32839, 33867, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21, 812, Aff’d on Recon., 90-1 BCA ¶ 22, 393 (1989), Aff’d 23 Cl.Ct. 525, Aff’d, 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir.), Cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 598 (1992).– Expert failed to consider delays for which C was

responsible.

8



• Failure to consider one’s own delays (cont’d).– Expert took approved CPM schedule and revised it

to correct certain logic errors and incorporate crew restraints.

– Created a revised CPM for use as a benchmark schedule and then prepared analysis of G-caused delays and made a comparison of A/P vs. A/B s.



• Failure to consider one’s own delays (cont’d).– Expert performed in-depth review of all project

correspondence and data pertinent to progress of project but was instructed to exclude all disruptions except those caused by G.

9



• Failure to consider one’s own delays (cont’d).– G expert presented revised A/P. and an analysis of

5 Contractor-caused delays that impacted project’s critical path.

– C’s analysis unreliable and inherently biased.



• Failure to keep schedules up to date and reflecting delays as they occur. See FortecConstr. v. U.S., 8 Cl.Ct. 490 (1985).– Failure to account for delays “as they

occurred” can call into question one’s analysis. See e.g., Ballenger Corp., DOTBCA No. 74-32, 74-32A, 72-32H, 84-1 BCA ¶ 16, 973 at 84, 524 (1983); Preston-Brady Co., VABCA Nos. 1892, 1991, 2555, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19, 649 (1987).

10



• Failure to involve the right people in the delay analysis. See Turner Constr. Co., ASBCA Nos. 25447, 29472, 29591, 29592, 29830, 29851, 29852, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22, 649 (1990).– G’s expert’s analysis rejected because limited and

cursory review of project DOCS (that were selected by G, not expert).



• Failure to involve the right people . . . (cont’d)– Information compiled by individuals who had

nothing to do with actual performance.– Substantial portion of analysis was delegated by

expert to associates whose qualifications were questionable.

11



• Need to avoid adversarial interests. See Nello L. TeerCo., ENGBCA No. 4376, 83-3 BCA ¶ 19, 326 (1986).– CPM schedule becomes suspect when C and G have

developed adversarial interests.– Too many variables in schedule subject to

manipulation to permit acceptance of conclusions by CPM consultants in such circumstances.


Common Problems

• Modified “total time” – simply throwing in some self-caused delays without analysis – ad hoc

• Ignoring concurrent delays– Failure to account for pacing

• Ignoring your own delays

12


Time Impact Analysis (TIA®)

TIA® is – A technique for apportioning actual delay which

has occurred– A retrospective analysis using 20 – 20 hindsight– It is not a prospective analysis which requires

predictions about future occurrences– Is it really a TIA®?


Computer Based Electronic Schedules

• Electronic Schedules, essential for today's environment

• Constraints, Restraints and Logic ties• Computer based schedules are Models of the planned

work• Computer based as-built schedules are records of the

actual work

13


TIA® Requirements

As-Planned Schedule– Contract Dates (Milestones)– Logical Relationships (Work Sequence)– Reasonable Durations

As-Built Schedule– Actual activity start dates– Actual activity completion dates– Change Orders inserted


Recommended TIA® Procedure

1. Determine the baseline (as-planned) schedule for the analysis.2. Establish the reasonableness of the baseline activity durations

and logic, and revise as required. This results in a revised baseline.

3. Determine the source and reliability of as-built data.4. Select the first Time Impact Analysis (TIA)® date and

determine the progress of all activities, to that date.5. Note any delaying events which occurred during the analysis

period (late progress).6. Update the revised baseline for progress during the analysis

period (progress override).7. Identify and insert new activities as necessary.8. Revise remaining durations using Contractors projected

schedule.9. Note change in project completion date.

14


Recommended TIA® Procedure cont…

10. Determine cause and responsibility (owner, Contractor, etc.) for the change in project completion date (technical review of activity).

11. Inspect the network for controlling delays and note.12. Repeat steps 4-11 for each analysis.13. Develop successive Time Impact Analysis (TIA)® around

critical activity delays and controlling delays until the analysis reaches project completion, using as-built data.

14. Summarize the results of the analysis using simplified summary graphics.

15. Run comparative schedule analysis to ascertain all changes to the successive Time Impact Analysis (TIA)® schedules and summarize.

16. Identify and highlight on the summary graphics, the controlling and critical delays.


Dancing with the Schedule

• The schedule is a model of the intended work plan• The schedule is only as good as the plan• Multiple layers of interactions between the activities of the

schedule may not be modeled (scheduled) at all• The schedule is not precise and will be revised many times

during the course of the actual work• While exact calculations of events can be made, as a practical

matter, schedule calculations lack precision

15


Dancing with the Schedule

• The schedule is a tool to help manage the work• The actual work will not mimic the plan• Physical relationships on the work site will control actual work

activities and may not be in the logic• The management or forensic value of the construction schedule

is directly related to the effort invested in preparing, up-dating and replanning the schedule

• Self organizing, nonlinear, feedback systems are unpredictable*

* The Systems Thinker Volume 13 Number 2 (Dancing with Systems by DonellaMeadows)


Project Examples

– Refinery Renovation120 million dollar Refinery Utilities Up-

Grade and expansion project in the middle east

– Submarine PipelineFive Foot Diameter, 12,000 meter

Cement Encased Pipeline

16


Refinery Project Analysis

• Apportion Delay, Owner – EPC Contractor– Defective Design– Site Conditions– Changes– Owner Interference


Refinery Project AnalysisBlending, Storage & Transfer System

• The BS&T System consists of tanks, pumps, blenders/mixers, and piping to handle storage for new process plant feeds and products; provide in-line blending of motor gasoline, diesel and fuel oil; transfer unit feeds, intermediate products, blending components, and finished products; and, cool black oil. Existing services and equipment will be refurbished and relocated from other areas.

17


BS&T Issues

• Owner delayed start of construction due to drainage issues

• U/G obstructions

• Owners inaccurate as-built drawings

• Changes in Owners OMSB philosophy

• HAZOP Review

• Black Oil sump foundation delay (TEL contamination)


Schedule Summary

• As-Planned Schedule• As-Built Schedule• Change Orders• Comparison of 90% Engineering• IFC Drawing Analysis

18


Major Change Orders

• 52 – Revise pumps, electrical, foundations, etc of Diesel, Fuel Oil and Mogas blenders. BS&W estimated $2,888,739.

• 63, 64, & 88 – Piping, instrumentation and junction box as-builts. These were required because the as-built data provided by Owner was inaccurate.

• 67 – Oil Movement, Storage and Blending revision. BS&W estimated $519,660 with an 81/2 month schedule impact.


Major Change Orders cont…

• 120 – BS&T HAZOP revisions. BS&W estimated $241,408. • 122 – Inter-contract instrumentation changes. Compensates BS&W

for the additional work discussed in the March 1996 Packages 2 & 5 coordination meeting. BS&W estimated $203,826 and 2 to 4 monthsof schedule adjustment.

• 152 – BS&T instrumentation changes. Compensates BS&W for the procurement and construction changes resulting from CO #67. BS&W estimated $489,277.

19


As-Planned Schedule


As-Built Schedule

20


Change Orders


Oct 1997

June 19, 1995 & June 17 1995 BS&W Schedule Analysis

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Mechanical Completion Certificate

July 26, 1994 Bid Schedule (RAST)

Owner Approved Reconstructed (CPM) Schedule with June 1995

Impacts

Jan 1999

Blending, Storage & Transfer Mechanical Completion Analysis

15 months delay

Bid vs Completed Schedule Delay

Oct 1997

Jun 1998Mar 1998

21


BS&T Summary

• Engineering delayed 24 Months• 90% Engineering delayed 9 Months• IFC Drawings delayed 24 Months• Mechanical Completion delayed 16 Months• Impacted by 53 Change Orders


Schedule Analysis

• TIA’s® would be meaningless• As-Planned schedule was fundamentally defective• Re-Planned schedules were rigged• CO’s not incorporated into the schedules• Constrained milestone dates• Fixed inter-system and inter-package dates

22


Refinery Analysis Summary

• Observations and Comments


Submarine Pipeline Analysis

• Original Schedule 80 Activities

• As-Built – 140 Activities

23


Schedule Analysis Results

• Contractor Delay Analysis – 500 days of delay, Owner Responsibility

• Time Impact Analysis® – 140 Days of total delay, Contractor Responsibility


Submarine Pipeline Analysis

• Apportion Delay, Owner-Contractor– Issues Giving Rise to Delay– Weather– Underwater conditions– Damage to Pipeline

24


Activity Status

• Physical Units• Schedule Data Reporting• Daily Records


Analysis Schedules

Submarine Pipeline As-Planned Schedule

Submarine Pipeline TIA Summary

Submarine Pipeline Work During Exclusion Periods

25


Contact Us!

Robert C. McCue, P.E.

MDCSystems®

300 Berwyn ParkSuite 115

Berwyn, PA 19312610-640-9600

Patrick J. O’Connor, Jr., Esq.

Faegre & Benson, LLP2200 Wells Fargo Center

90 South 7th StreetMinneapolis, MN 55402

612-766-7413

*Time Impact AnalysisSM and TIASM are service marks of IMDISI Inc.

*Time Impact Analysis® is Registered Trademark # 1701267 of IMDISI, Inc. in the European Union

** TIA® is Registered Trademark # 1700210 of IMDISI, Inc. in the European Union

Documents

Final Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects.pdf