delay assessment

Karthik,
Check both contractors contract. There should be a clause for delay and disruption. Both of them should bear the cost if both are the causing of delay. Also do an analysis on how cost can be proportions in regards to their faults. It maybe both are relying to each other.

Hi Karthik

This is a classic concurrency situation.

It depends on which contractor has the dominant delay - which delay started first and lasted longest.

Consider these scenarios:

Contractor A delay started on day 100 and lasted for 30 days.

Contractor B delay sarted on day 110 and lasted 10 days.

Then contractor A has the dominant delay and takes the blame.

Contractor A delay started on day 100 and lasted 20 days.

Contrator B delay started on day 110 and lasted 20 days.

Total delay 30 days.

Then Contractor A has the first 10 days delay

And Contractor B has the last 10 days.

They share the middle 10 days.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Karthik,

How difficult would it be to split the activity into two?

Then impact each activity according to the delay incurred by each contractor.

D.

Hi David

Nice to hear from you again.

The point of this scenario is that both contractors have a FS link to the delayed task.

Even if there were different FS Lead Lags along the task duration splitting the task would destroy the original logic.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Okay, guys, I’m not arguing, I’m asking -- I want to understand.

Mike, here’s what you described:

****
"Contractor A delay started on day 100 and lasted 20 days.
Contractor B delay started on day 110 and lasted 20 days. Total delay 30 days.

Then Contractor A has the first 10 days delay. And Contractor B has the last 10 days. They share the middle 10 days."
****

The way I read this is that the successor activity (let’s call it C) is not scheduled to start until day 111 anyway, after A and B are both finished. So days 101-110 are actually free float for A, as B isn’t scheduled to finish till day 110.

If (I stress IF!) there is no relationship, work dependency or shared resource between A and B other than both being FS predecessors of C, so that B’s delay was NOT due to A’s delay, why wouldn’t:

1. A have no responsibility for the first 10 days of delay, as it does not delay C’s start?

2. A and B share responsibility for delay in C’s ctart from day 111 to day 120?

3. B have total responsibility for its second 10 days of delay, from 121 to 130?

And the total delay be 20 days, not 30, because the first 10 days of A’s delay was free float?

Mike, I certainly believe that the way you described it is the way that it’s looked at -- I’m just really curious to know why.

Or maybe I’m not interpreting the description of the scenario correctly?

Fraternally in project management,

Steve the Bajan

Hi Stephen

Sorry to confuse you.

My scenario was a description of the Delays caused by Contractor A & B impacting on the planned start of task C.

In the original programme both contractors finish and task C starts with a simple FS relationship.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Okay, although it’s still not clear to me, from the scenario, how C was delayed by 30D if one of its FS predecessors was not scheduled to start until day 110 (as that is when you said its delay started).

Taking each X to be 10D of work, each O to be non-working time, each F to be free float, and each D to be delay time. Both A and B are FS predecessors of C.

The plan would have been:

A XXXXXXXXXXF

C 0000000000OXXXXX

B XXXXXXXXXXX

Total planned duration = 160, with C not scheduled to start until 111.

Now the actual would be, if "Contractor A delay started on day 100 and lasted 20 days" and "Contractor B delay started on day 110 and lasted 20 days":

A XXXXXXXXXXXXF

C 00000000000OOXXXXX

B XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Total planned duration = 180 (20 longer than planned), with C not scheduled to start until 131. A still has 10 units of free float. Although it has slipped 20D, it actually has not delayed project completion, because it has never been critical.

No big deal. I’m assuming you intended a different logic diagram. But I thought you were saying something about the way a court might judge this, and I didn’t understand the logic behind such a judgement.

Fraternally in project management,

Steve the Bajan

Ok Stephen Lets try again.

Original Programme

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
FS>C
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
FS>C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Delay Programme

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaa
FS>C
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBbbbbb
FS>C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Impacted Delay DDDDDDDD

Concurrency Share

Contractor A DD
Contractor B DD
Both Share DDDD

This only a schematic - we need Rafael to put it up on chart.

I don’t think there is any case law on multi contractor concurrency on the same delay impact- all the cases are based on Contractor Employer Delay.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Okay. To me, that looks pretty much like what I "diagrammed". If I were Contractor B, I’d be pretty upset to be blamed for "delay" of what was free float.

Thanks, Mike.

Fraternally in project management,

Steve the Bajan