As Built Critical Path

Hi Ronald

Maybe the word Right was not correct BUT the computer program (Example P3) is told to calculate the the Longest Path on Remaining Duration. If you program P3 to Calculate on the Actual Duration it will also give you the "As Build CP"

Have you ever had a case were the schedule tells u this is your CP and you know it is wrong then when you check the logic you find the mistake. We must not rely on Computers and belive everything they "Say" is correct.

As far as Politicians go " I have heard politicians say "I have never had ... with this woman" But then again it depends what you define "...." as. So my conclusion are they always tells the "truth" from their perspective.

Cheers

Jaco,

It is an interesting idea, but you cannot calculate a longest path using actual durations. – Let me put this another way, such a calculation without modifications would be meaningless.

A longest path calculation using just actual durations would ignore that fact that many activities begin before they are logically able to do so. This fact, in part accounts for the increased durations commonly found. In addition to using actual durations, you also need to adjust the logic to account for the actual early starts.

I have been thinking of this issue for a long time. In fact, I have written software called As-Planned/As-Built Maker that creates such a schedule from the As-Built schedule. You can read more on this at http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/forensic_brochure.htm.

As for relying on what computers ’say’ is correct - first you need to at least know what they are saying. That is why the As-Built Critical Path is so important.

The simple issue has been so pronloged and discussed to understand the word " As built". I think enough and valuable discussion should come into conclusion now.

Shahzad, what’s your conclusion? Does an as-built critical path exist?

Gerry.

Gerry, I have already been given my opinion at the start of thread and no change in the statement so far.

PHEW!!! – and I used to get complaints about some of my long threads and wanderings!
I’ve now had a chance to catch up, so let me throw my hat into the ring!!

Having just completed planning an other piss-up in a distillery, I can see this in a different light!
I think that it all depends on which hat you are wearing!

I believe that Martyn and others may be correct in saying that by definition the terms "As built" and "Critical Path" cannot be used together, since an "As built" schedule is one that has been updated with actual starts and finishes, whilst a "Critical path" can only apply to the future. And I am persuaded by this view from a strict planning perspective.

But as Gary also correctly points out, when you are trying to explain the historical events that impacted a Contractor’s performance (in lay terms and often to a lawyer or a sleepy Judge!), the term “As-built Critical Path” is used to describe such causes and effects. The “As-built Critical Path” is a term used (or abused!) to describe the sequence of actual events that happened throughout the execution of the project and which, as a result of their occurrence, had an impact on the Critical Path at that time.

So I think that from a strict or clinical planning perspective, many of you are right in that an “As-built Critical Path” is a contradiction in terms and cannot exist, but from a delay claims perspective, it is a term frequently used to describe the historical events that impacted a critical path in pursuit of a claim for delay.

Does this clarify or confuse? ;-)

Stuart

www.rosmartin.com

Dear Stuart,
please advise me where in the definition of the Critical Path I may find that "a "Critical path" can only apply to the future".
Thank you in advance,
Vladimir

Vladimir,
I was expressing the view that I can understand how the CP can be applied to the future: I was not being categorical or dogmatic about the issue.
I was stating that I am persuaded by the view that a CP can only apply to the future; I was not defining it. Nor have I been persuaded by earlier parts of this thread – within a strict planning and scheduling context – that a CP exists retrospectively.

That is not to say, of course, that I don’t use the term when presenting a delay claim predicated on historical events that have had an impact on the CP at that time.

Cheers,

Stuart

www.rosmartin.com

Stuart, many thanks for lifting the quality of debate - it was waning.

I am still a Believer in an as Build Critical Path.

Example (Piping)

Two Different Iso.

Iso one
Release Dwg (Activity Critical) (Late 5 Day’s)
Construction Planned 14 Days Actual 7 Days

Iso Two
Release Dwg (Non Critical 10 Days Float) (Late 8 Days NO EOT)
Construction Planned 14 Days Actual 24 Days

Project Delayd 5 Days as per Projected CP (Real Impact none)
Project is Delayed Actualy by 8 Days (Please note non Critical Activity)

The only way how you can see this is after the project is completed. Then you would be able to see that ISO two was the real Critical activity and ISO 1 was not ???.

I know you can argue that the activity become critical but you don’t know the full impact before it is completed.

Cheers

Jaco

What you state goes to the heart of some extremely difficult questions in delay analysis.

Have you read the SCL protocol - see www.eotprotocol.com.

I put my view on records and the SCL were kind enough to put my paper on their web site.

Gerry.

Jaco,

Your example with the 2 Iso’s.

You do not say if the float on the 2 Iso’s is the float on the original as-planned programme or what was available at the time of issue of the Iso’s.

A claim, for eot or delay, that is based on the float as shown on the as-planned programme only would not succeed.

It it is the float at the time the the Iso’s were issued, then the contractor is entitled to a 5 day eot for late issue of Iso 1. Most contracts encourage an extension of time to be awarded when the completion date is "likely" to be delayed, i.e. at the time of the delaying event.

At the end of the project, to establish actual delay caused by either Iso 1 and/or 2, then further investigation and substatiation is required to support a ’loss & expense’ claim, and not just an as-built programme or as-built critical path.

Sorry, I have digressed from the thread, but this is important. An as-built critical path, or any cpm delay analysis, is there to support or compliment a delay claim; but the delay claim must be based on facts.

Roger Gibson

Gerry et al

Being an "As-built critical path ’o-phile" I’ve found the thread interesting.

It seems to me that the answer has to be yes - it exists!
Subject to the information being available a skilled planning analyst can surely advise what was critical at any point in time on the project. If we also believe the critical path can switch, then surely connecting all the retrospectively determined critical activities together results in (yes wait for it ...) the "as-built critical path".

Of course you could all just be talking about the ability to locate the as-built critical path via programming software (i.e. via a logic linked dynamic as-built programme) then I would say it is possible in threory - its just not reliable!

Gerry - get back to work!

Regards
David

If we can say in retrospect what was critical at any point in time (using analysis) then

Hi Guys,

Hope you all had a pleasant XMas, and all my best wishes for 2005.

What is the point of planning, how to work out the best way to carry out a project, and then to monitor it as the work progresses. Therefore, planning is all about the future, and what is past is history.

The reasons for analysing an as-built schedule may vary from project to project. This depends on the purpose of the analysis, ie whether it is for a claim,improving future planning or even to see why the planning was successful or a disaster, etc.

The point I stiil make is that history is in the past and cannot therefore be critical. The events that happened might have had a serious impact on the future, and even if they were critical at the time, cannot be changed. I think the point of history is analysing the mistakes/positive achievements and using this information to improve the future.

So instead of discussing this so-called enigmatic "AS-built critical path", let’s rather discuss more beneficial ways of using as-built schedules, to improve future planning.

Regards

Philip J

Philip

Your sentiments are well voiced and received - but remember, you’re writing them in a forum entitled "Contracts, Claims & Claims Assessment". While no one can criticise your idealism I think you ignore reality - i.e. that it is (alas) often very very relevant to determine historically what was critical on a project at a prior point in time.

Clients, Courts and Tribunals are constantly looking for assistance from experienced project planners on this subject - surely you can’t be suggesting they are seeking answers to an impossible question?

A Happy New Year to you and all the other forum participants also.

David

I echo David’s remarks. In the context of this forum the ’As-Built Critical Path’ term is very important and fundamental to any time-related claims.

Gerry McCaffrey’s original question was, "I am trying to elicit views from real planners discussing the concept of an as-built critical path. Does such a thing exist?"

In my view it does; but it can not be simply generated from the original as-planned baseline network using the planning software in which it was created. IMO it is created from a thorough manual investigation of progress records and other documents. In reality this is the chain of activities that is the longest continuous path of activities between project start and project completion. However, in the ’claims’ context this is commonly known as the ’As Built Critical Path’.

Roger Gibson

Having watched this thread with interest, it is clear that there are two distinct camps of thought here – there are those who believe an as-built critical path cannot exist and those who do use them. I have to say I am in agreement with Roger and David that an as-built critical path must exist, for people, me included, draw them as part of delay analysis and delay claims.

Having recently presented an as-built critical path to a judge in a delay analysis claim, that judge certainly believes in such a document and terminology. David is right when he says clients, courts and tribunals are constantly looking for assistance from experienced project planners on this subject. In my experience, courts do want to know what was the critical path through the project even though that project may have been completed a significant time ago. An as-built critical path is exactly what they are looking for.

Best wishes

Gary France
Chairman
Planning Engineers Organisation

It seems we are going around in circles here. Because a judge (or similar) thinks that he/she understands the concept of an As-built Critical Path does not mean it exists, or if it does that the definition is universally held.

The crux as pointed out recently is to show the longest path through a project after the fact. Actual start/finish dates can be said to be fact (if records are full and correct) but there is nothing factual about the links. If you can demonstrate the Actual logic then you can have an actual critical path, otherwise the CP is a mixture of fact and conjecture. One should be very wary of telling a tribunal (or similar) that a critical path that mixes post-project fact with original or amended logic is the As-built CP. We have presented pseudo-as-builts BUT with the clear proviso that the plan logic is reconstructed with best endeavours - not fact!

Philip

I think you are giving an IT answer to a planning question. Locating the as-built critical path is best achieved by the application of experience, skill, and common sense. The occasional and careful use of programming data and software (links et al) is a useful tool but only that!

The As-Built Critical Path must exist - its a matter of physics IMO. Had Gerry asked "is it always possible to locate the ABCP?" then subjectivity might reign!

David

David
It’s not an IT answer. The point I’m trying to make is that As-built usually (wrt. drawings etc) means based on fact - so we can have as-built start/ finish dates. You say that determining the ABCP path depends on experience, common sense, etc. I totally agree. My point is now that we have a CP which is subjective - so whatever it may be it cannot be called As-built, its subjectivety should be admitted. Nothing wrong with that but it should not be called As-built.

I believe we have seen two (I think only two) points of view in this thread. Probably all that can be said has been said - we now need to agree to disagree!!

Philip

As to your suggestion "agree to disagree", I’ve got two points:

First, while some in this forum have said the ABCP doesn’t exist, none have offered a clear reason why they reach this view. Your comments do however capture the matter which I think the following suggestion resolves?
Can we agree the ABCP exists (thereby answering Gerry’s original question which has stirred so much debate), while recognising that any view as to its route is subjective, i.e. an opinion?
Of course, an opinion is precisely how it would be appropriately characterised to a court / tribunal in any event (as Garry has recently done).

Second, it would be a shame to cut-off debate, so lets continue to canvass views. In particular I would really be interested in hearing clear justification for the view that it doesn’t exist as opposed to the point that its difficult / subjective to determine - any takers?

David

Guys,

I am with those who think ABCP does not exist. My understanding of the CPM is that you do Forward Pass for the Early Start and Finish Dates, and then Backward pass for the Late Start and Finish Dates. Activities are Critical if ES=LS and EF=LF, i.e. when there is no Total Float. The fact that the Critical Path is the longest path in the Programme is the result of the previous process - it is not the definition of the Critical Path.

How can you do that with ACTUAL DATES??? in the AB Programme there are no Early or Late Dates - so how can there be a Critical Path?

Does your planning software (P3, SureTrak or even MSP) show a Critical Path for Actual Dates?

However, I am not sure about one thing:

In Contracts where the Contractor is entitled to EOT only for ACTUAL delays to the Date for PC, how do you know which delays actually effected the actual date for PC i.e. which delays were Critical?

Hi guys,

Am i right on my observation that most who believe that As-built critical path comes from Contracts/Claims background while those on the opposite side are mostly Planning practitioners. Just asking

I’m on the planning practitioners side that’s why I believe As-built CP is not the right term and can not exist.

Se

Hi guys again,

It was suggested before that the issue be put to a vote. Maybe this is the right time to put the issue to a vote notwithstanding that the debate can continue.

It’s also noteworthy to see the trend of those believers in ABCP and non believers as to what background they come from.

Se

Sigfredo,

Interesting observation.

How about a survey to check your point?

I do not agree with the idea previously raised to ’agree to disagree’. For the sake of our profession, I think this important argument should be finalised one way or another.

[Duplicate posting deleted by Moderator.]

[Duplicate posting deleted by Moderator.]

Hi Sigfredo,
I think the point you make is probably very valid, however, I have been in both camps, and still think that the ABCP is a figment of the imagination. Lets take it that the planner has regularly saved all the history including the float at every update and at the end of the project you tack every activity that was critical at any stage of the the project, and then try and find the connection between them. We have mostly agreed tha the critical path can jump around on most projects, so lets say tha you have now now isolated all those activities that was critical, the chance will be good that you may find they are unconnected. How are you going to explain that to a judge or arbitrator David?

Regards

Philip J

Hi Philip, I think people are confusing Gerry’s question as being related to Primavera, Power Project, Microsoft Project or some other software, all of which require the relationships you refer to if a CP is to be established. He did not put his question in the context of software, and neither am I talking about software, forward / backward passes, early / late dates or the like. The connection between as-built critical path activities does not have to be physical, logical, resource dirven or otherwise - the connection is simply that it was critical at the time (as reasonably and retrospectively determined -assuming of course it is possible to so determine from the available information). Consider that an event that occurred (e.g. the collpase of a portion of structure) might make the crtical path switch between two completely unrelated unlinked activities. In regards to the points made by others in regards to the ABCP as determined via software, I don’t disagree! Sorry about the double negative. Regards David

Hi David

As per your logic "The connection between as-built critical path activities does not have to be physical, logical, resource dirven or otherwise - the connection is simply that it was critical at the time" than many or all activities could fullfill this criteria in isolation no doubt, but untill unless you do not connect them how you could you establish path leave critical or not.

I hold the view ABCP do not exist.

Regards

I hold the view a critical path can only exist in the as build stage before that it is only a projected/forecast critical path.


Cheers

Razi,

The answer you seek is to do with planning software, not whether an ABCP exists! When did planning become solely a computer excercise?

The Greeks did planning when they were building the Acropolis, and I submit (provided the records were available) a decent planner could establish what the actual crtical path was throughout the job!

I think my 2 cents has grown to a dollar making the same point, so I’ll leave it to others for a while!

Regards
David

Hi David,

I started and learnt planning before computor aided planning existed, however, planning cannot be done without logic, whether by compütor or manually on paper. It is this logic that determines the criticality of activities, therefore you cannot have a critical path without continuous logic.

Regards

Philip

Philip
Looking forward yes, Looking backwards no.
David

Gerry, Gary, David, Roger, Stuart and all,

This has been the longest and I think the most interesting thread we had on our claims forum sofar. It seems to me that now the subject is more or less exhausted.

I would love to see a paper summerising in a well structured way all the ideas and opinions brought forward under this thread.

Do you know of somebody, perhaps someone who needs a paper for the PEO, or a student that will take up such challenge?

Thanks Uri

Of course, I think we all realise - it is actually more about the word "PATH" than anything else.

I think most (if not all) of us can easily accept the notion that it is reasonable to expect that identification of what was critical at a given date is deducible (subject to information existing). Some items are so obviously on the critical path (yes even the as-built critical path) that there is zero debate.

However, consider that a series of windows are chosen (retrospectively) and likely candidates for critical activities within each window are identified (which is highly recommended for factually based analyses) - if an event such as the one that Gary France concisely summarised in his 7th Dec 08:19 posting arises, then the PATH is broken.

Therefore I do wrestle with the notion canvassed by some of the Pro ABCP acolytes which state that the ABCP is the Longest Path - or the longest chain of continuous activities from beginning to end.

What if the ABCP is broken (at the window interfaces) (See Gary’s useful example)

The activity content of successive windows can be totally unconnected. Therefore, given this discontinuity at the opening and closing dates of each window - how safe/appropriate is it to characterise the final product of a competent windows analysis as providing a continuous "as-built-critical-PATH". As one of the earlier commentators stated - an "as built critical history" is perhaps more accurate.

However, if the critical path did not switch between different chains of activities - then it could be accurate to describe it as the as-built-critical-path.

I had planned a follow up question to my simple one liner at the beginning of this thread. I won’t bother for obvious reasons! But it did relate to that farcical thing called collapsed as-built analysis!! Come on -sock it to me those fans of Collapsed As-Builts!

Gerry

Gerry,

Quote from you post: ’However, if the critical path did not switch between different chains of activities - then it could be accurate to describe it as the as-built-critical-path’.

Once the project is finished, how do you know if the CP switched during the project without retrospective analysis? it could have gone somewhere else, and later return to it’s original path. Would an ABCP be obtainable then?

Anyway, could you help me with the following question:

Assuming the ABCP does not exist, and that the Contract allows for ’actual delays to the date for PC’ only,how do you know which delay effected this actual date?

Uri, You’ve answered your own question; only by retrospective analysis.


Roger Gibson

Uri

There are no simple answers. I was involved in a case where a preliminary hearing was solely about methodologies to be applied to the delay analysis. One of the lawyers summed things up by saying “it’s about using the least bad method”. Every method has its limitations.

As for your questions –

(a) If you are applying your mind after the facts you do not know if the path switched or not without doing retrospective analysis.
(b) If the purported ABCP switches then returns to a previous path – that is precisely the point I have been encouraging debate upon in this thread – if the path is broken – is it really appropriate to consider the ABCP as spanning the whole project. In the case of a broken paths I prefer ABCH (history).
(c) You do not “know” anything. It is the skill and experience of the expert/analyst which will provide weight to his/her developed opinion. Critical path (prospective and retrospective) is not fact. It is always opinion. If opposing experts agree - that’s really useful for the judge / arbitrator / adjudicator. If opposing experts and competing parties agree – that’s even better. However - it is not unknown for a judge to reject the critical path which both sides agree upon (See Ascon v McAlpine). Philip Rawlings captured the matter perfectly in his posting 04 Jan 12:06 “there is nothing factual about the links” (in an as-built scenario).


Gerry.

I found this topic to be a most interesting discussion. Ronald Winter’s post of 9/12/04 6:37 was the ‘Eureka’ post that summarised it for me.

I’m making these comments from a delay claims analysis perspective.

I believe there is such a thing as an As Built Critical Path. Otherwise I would be out of my job and might have to give back last few years of salary.

We might not want to call it an As Built CP although we constantly refer to it in delay claims analysis. I have used the term ‘Progressive Critical Path’ in a number of reports I have worked on as it was based on the analysis of the logically linked status programmes issued by the Contractor. I’ll use the term Progressive CP for now; seems like a bread winner to me.

The Progressive CP basically shows which task is (I’ll come back to this) critical on any given day during the duration of the project and yes, it is subjective and depends on the skill, experience of the planning analyst, as built information and contemporary records available to and relied upon by the analyst.

Theoretically, if I have a crystal ball that allows me to see which task is critical on any given day, as far as I am concerned that is the task that needs to be progressed that day. If there is no progress on that task on that day it WILL delay the completion of the project by 1 day.

For a claims analyst, the Contractor’s programme (a CPM network) is the best starting point for such a crystal ball (or insight) into a project. It is a readily available source of the Contractor’s methodology for when and how he intends to complete the project. The monthly status programmes provide a snapshot of what the Contractor believes is critical on that status date (I am assuming that the Contract Administrator/ Superintendent is doing its job and reviewing the progress information entered and the forecast for the remainder of the works). We can use that information and using rudimentary mathematics and CPM logic in the programmes (labour intensive as it may be), to determine how individual tasks slipped (or lost float and became critical) during any two status programmes. This provides us with what IS critical on any given day between those two status dates. The smaller the interval between any two status programmes, the more reliable the resulting Progressive CP for that period.

Don’t worry that’s just the first attempt. We can and in most instances will definitely need to refine it through contemporary records (what was reasonably known by the Contractor on that date) and as built information (as suggested by Roger Gibson in his post of 5/12/04 12:14). That’s where the experience of the planning analyst is most important and the eventual Expert Evidence, if any. It also depends on the quality of the status programmes and the progress information entered in those programmes. It also depends on how much time and money is to be spent on the exercise.

Repeat this process on a succession of status programmes. After we have determined that set of tasks that was (or should we now say IS) critical for each day of the project’s life and combine it and overlay it on an As Built Schedule; you get a Progressive Critical Path (see Ronald Winter’s post of 9/12/04 6:37).

Using the bottom down approach, the fine tuning of the Progressive CP can be done to the umpteenth degree for the period/s during which the delay/s are claimed. If the delay lies on the As Built Critical Path, it was critical.

And yes, I agree with David Barry (post of 5/1/05 12:34) that the ‘connection between as-built critical path activities does not have to be physical, logical, resource driven or otherwise – the connection is simply that it was [of course looking back] critical at the time…”. The connection only tells us when an activity ceased to be critical and the critical path shifted to another task.

I can’t wait to check out the website/ software that Ronald Winter mentioned in his email of the 7/12/04 2:42. This could be an excellent tool for a Progressive CP analysis using the status programmes. At least it might take a lot of the manual calculations out of the analysis. Seems like I am using the CPM for similar purposes; except that I start from day 1 and move forward to the end of the project through successive statuses.

Ron, can I get a demo version 

MR

Mudassar,

I’d like to congratulate you on your concise message on this thread. I like your ’progressive critical path’ terminology.

I notice you only became a member of PP a few days ago, and look fowrard to your views on the ’claims’ forums in the future.

Roger

Hello everyone,
Well this has been a long but interesting discussion. I thought I might jump in. First of all the answer to the ’does an as-built cp exist?’ is a definite yes. For example, if we take two simple activities, say piling and foundations, and evidence shows that the piling finished 6 weeks before founds - are we saying that the completion of the piling 6 weeks earlier was critical to the completion of the founds? The answer may be no, and the piling did not need to be finished until 2 weeks before the end of foundations, so there existed 4 weeks of float. The start of piling to the start of founds, however, probably was critical.

I have often seen Gerry’s --xx-x---xx--x-xxxx-x example in real life and as planners we know how to do manual forward & backward passes, but in the disjointed as-built example the normal method of calculating cp does not apply, does it? So is it acceptable for the planner to use his own experience & common sense to work out the critical path?

And Ron I agree with what you said about critical activites being different on a daily basis, but how do you look back at a particular day/week/month and work out what was critical at that time in the absence of progress data?

Like others I prefer ’windows’ analysis, however the progress data does not always exist and the --xx-x----xx info may only be available in a simple diary format - what then?

David,

You can approximate the remaining duration of an activity on any given date the same way engineers always have – you interpolate between known points. You know the original duration and actual start or the remaining duration at the data date and you know the actual finish. Use a linear regression to estimate the remaining duration at any point between those two points.

Luckily, all of the work is done for you if you use an Expected Finish constraint. It is as simple as that.

Ron Winter.

Ron
Whilst I understand what you are saying, doesn’t this method simply mean that every activity will eventually become critical by virtue of the fact that the as-built float is used up? In my piling example, the activity was not critical in its entirity but your method would not reveal that, or would it?

At the end of the day, is the only way of determining the path for an planner to apply experience and common sense by reviewing what was being done in as much detail as possible, ie completion of piling in zone A allowed foundations to commence... and so on?

DW

Hi Ron and David,

If I may step in again, and try and save the horse not only before it bolted, and is flogged to death, but before it is minced for sausages, to try and prove an ABCP is near impossible unless you have a well documented history, and what this history will show you is reasons for the delays.

Something can only be critical before it is about to happen, or during the time it is happening, once it it completed how can it be critical? This is the reason you should report a delay prior to it happening, or during the time it is happening, not after the project is happening. Where I come from, and I believe this is international contractual law, you have to notify of a possible delay as soon as possible, or within a specified period. So what is the point of trying to find an ABCP in the aftermath. If you have warned the client/managing contractor/contractor of such an event you have a right to a claim, if not you have not done your job as a planner. In every weekly meeting I am involved with, that is about 7 of them, involving contractors, they are asked if there are any potential or possible claims or any outstanding financial issues, we believe in fairness, so if the answer is NO they revoke their rights to any such issues, it is their job to report any problems, and mine to forward these, To my client/managing contractor. Should this fairness not be there, and the the matter is not minuted, they have the right to arbitration/litigation. So as a planner your job is to make sure, no matter where you sit in the tree, that you either be pro-active and give warnings at the right time, or ask the right questions. As somebody dealing with or consulting/advising on claims, you should make sure your employer/client, has these measures in place.
As somebody who believes in fairness, I think, you should also assist the contractors/subcontractors to ensure that they gave the right measures in place should they have an entitlement (Claim), and this could be done by auditing them on a regular basis and assisting them in ensuring they know the procedures. This can save any project a major amount on litigation or claim fees, and ensure everybody stays in business, as we should unless our practices are poor. Take a look at the cost of claims, and let me know if they are worthwhile. We should be handling claims in progress, not months/years after the fact.

An instance, I have to mention, in the recent past, happened on a plant in Mozambique, where the managing contractor stepped out of the fray, and six months later announced a n aditional profit of lets say $m40 and this was roughly the money lost by all the contractors. Try making a claim in Mozambique. The Managers all pocketed big bonuses nevertheless.

Back to the ABCP, I still think it is BBB (if anybody wants the meaning, contact me privately), any decent planner should have ensured there is a good costing system in place, in parrallel with planning, and this wiil be a better way of finding where the problems lay, and help to ensure better estimating and planning for future projects.

So "BASTA" to the so-called ABCP BBB.

Regards and thanks to All,

Philip J

Philip

The activity may have been critical at the time. The point is that retrospective delay analysis is alive and kicking. Whilst I agree that delays should be notified at the time (and they mostly are) the fact remains that for various reasons there is often the need to find the ABCP.

However whilst I agree that entitlement should be dealt with as the project progresses and that best practices should be in place, the fact is that throughout the World, this isn’t always the case.

In the ’aftermath’ of a project after say two years of arguing (it must be remembered that just because a contractor notifies of a delay during the project, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be agreed by the employer) the contractor decides to formalise his claim by proceeding to arbitration or litigation. How would you work out which events really did delay the completion of the project?

As far as your question are claims worthwhile? That obviously depends on the cost benefit analysis - most commercial organisations would say that it is worth spending 2 years and $1m fighting/defending a $10m claim if it is shown that he has a strong case!

Out of curiosity, as a fair minded individual; if you know one of your contractors has an entitlement but has not recognised it for himself at your weekly meeting - do you help him to identify this entitlement?

David

Planeteers may like to know a paper on this subject has just been published by Keane Associates (www.keane-associates.com) at http://www.geg13.dial.pipex.com/Site/Content%20Pages/Updates/PDFs/Client%20Update%20-%20JAN%202005.pdf.

Regards

David

David,

Thanx for the info on the Keane Associates paper on this old perennial!! (and I don’t mean me) ;-)

Cheers,

Stuart

www.rosmartin.com

Dear David,

Thanks a lot for your valuable link.


Cheers!!!


Daya

David,

A most interesting link.

Thank you

Chris Oggham