Reprinted for The Planning Engineers Organisation - www.planningengineers.

org

As-Built Critical Paths - Fact or Fiction?

Anthony Caletka, Keane Associates

There has recently been an upsurge in the application of forensic delay analyses relying simply on what has become
known as an “As-Built Critical Path” - ABCP. Consequently, there has also been much debate between forensic
analysts and site planners as to whether as-built critical paths truly exist.

ABCP’s may be neither fact nor fiction, the debate has been focused on the application of certain terms, most
importantly “critical” and “path”, and the method of determining what was actually critical to completion. To avoid
confusion over the terms referred to in this paper I offer precise definitions to allow you to arrive at your own
conclusion as to whether As-Built Critical Paths exist or not.

As-built programme - The record of the history of the construction project in the form of a programme. The as-
built programme does not necessarily have any logic links...

Critical path - The sequence of activities through a project network from start to finish, the sum of whose
durations determines the overall project duration. There may be more than one critical path depending on
workflow logic. A delay to progress of any activity on the critical path will, without acceleration or re-
sequencing, cause the overall project duration to be extended, and is therefore referred to as a ‘critical delay.

Critical path analysis (CPA) and critical path method (CPM) - The critical path analysis or method is the process
of deducing the critical activities in a programme by tracing the logical sequence of tasks that directly affect the
date of project completion...
.
These definitions were extracted from the Protocol on Delay and Disruption published by the SCL. Despite ongoing
debate over the Protocol’s recommendations, I believe it is agreed by many that the definitions provided were helpful.
They will also assist in defining and understanding the ABCP method of analysis.

“Critical Path Analysis“ is clearly a process of deduction. It does not require one to “push a button” and does not rely
on computer software of any kind to determine where the path flows through the works. The path is dependent on the
facts and finding it requires a developed understanding of resource deployment, structural or build-ability
dependencies, changed intentions, unforeseen events, etc. This aspect of deduction is where “planners” and
“analysts” part ways, and is fundamental to the debate. Some believe a critical path can only be calculated by a
computer model which determines the path with the least amount of float. Computers provide great assistance in
Critical Path Analysis when planning and executing projects, especially on very large projects with thousands of tasks.

© 2005 - Keane Associates Limited

Page 2 of 5

Programming software is less useful in calculating the critical path in as-built programmes, when unforeseen changes
or events were experienced, when work was conducted out-of-sequence, under acceleration or using different
methods, resource levels, shifts or plant. CPA was possible before the advent of the PC and the same process of
logical deduction is possible today, without dependence on programming software.

Retrospectively deducing which activities “directly affect the date of project completion” is required with any form of
delay analysis and establishing an as-built programme should be possible as a factual matter of record. The real
difficulty is in determining where the critical path flows on any given day and progressively to completion. Before one
attempts to find the elusive ABCP, there are some basic tenets that must be accepted for the process to be effective.

a. The as-built critical path might be (and usually is) different than the as-planned critical path.
b. There can be more than one ABCP.
c. Activities on the ABCP are not necessarily critical throughout their entire duration.
d. The ABCP may shift to unrelated tasks - if unforeseen events occur (un-planned-shift), or if acceleration re-
sequencing is imposed (planned-shift).
e. An ABCP should be determined to each section/area of work completed later than the contract completion
date to identify both concurrent causes of delay and / or disruption to potentially critical tasks.
f. The sum of as-planned durations for the activities on the ABCP may be less than the original contract time for
performance (i.e. these activities would have had float in the as-planned programme.)
g. An ABCP does not determine liability for delay (ABCP’s illustrate “Effect” not “Cause”)
h. The forensic planner will need knowledge of the facts and experience with the relevant techniques and
methods of construction to arrive at a reliable assessment of the as-built critical path
i. ABCP’s are transparent, accessible and, if necessary, are easily amended if further facts are made available.

With that said - it may not be possible for parties to agree an ABCP, for many reasons. However, if the critical path is
the sequence of activities which “determines the overall project duration” then this must hold true not only in the as-
planned state, but also in the as-built state. On large projects with multiple discrete ‘sections’ there should arguably be
an ABCP to each and every section that was completed later than the original contract completion date. The number
of as-built critical paths will increase with the size, complexity or geographical spread of a project.

For example, the figure below demonstrates three concurrent critical paths (A, B, and C) superimposed onto an as-
built programme. The programme has been both summarized and filtered to include only as-built activities that were
either critical (solid red-line) or near critical (dashed red-line). Not all of the ABCPs completed on the same date,
however all ABCPs were completed later than the singular contractual date for completion (blue-line).

© 2005 - Keane Associates Limited

Page 3 of 5

The logic for shifting from one activity to the next is where both judgment and analysis of all available facts is required.
This will include meeting minutes, site diaries, photographs and any and all documents that are available.

Assessing the over-run against any one activity may require breaking the project down into windows1. By assessing
how long an activity or group of activities should have taken one can then compare this to the actual duration for the
same scope of work.

1. What if there is no As-Planned Programme?

Without an as-planned programme it is difficult to compare the as-built duration for any specific task to an equivalent
as-planned allowance. Even without the APP it will still be possible to assess what activities were critical to completion
and which events determined the commencement of each critical activity. The process requires the planner to track
the flow of work in reverse, from the completion date of each relevant section backwards, through the programme to
commencement. By assessing which activities were critical to completion and determining which task or event allowed
each activity to commence, one should be able to determine at least one initial ABCP from which to interrogate
documents and site personnel with first-hand knowledge of the events. Additional research and analysis would then
identify any refinement or adjustments required to the initially assessed ABCP(s). By repeating this process for each
delayed section this will allow the identification of concurrent delays along multiple critical paths. Further, as illustrated
on the previous page, there may be “near” critical paths that require assessment in parallel with these three concurrent
critical paths to ensure all possible concurrent delays, excusable and culpable are considered.

1
A “Window” is simply a reference to any discrete period of time being analysed. Any job can be broken down into windows for
analysis based on key milestones, significant events, or by using monthly intervals (eg. the data-date of progressed programmes)

© 2005 - Keane Associates Limited

Page 4 of 5

Once the ABCP’s are identified an entitlement model can be developed as illustrated above. Such models identify
when culpable delay was being experienced (red), when excusable delay was being experienced (yellow), and when
work was proceeding as planned (green), within each window. Colors could initially be assigned based on a ‘ball-in-
court’ principal, with contractual liability to be determined by others. The figure above also illustrates color coded
“windows” in which delays could be identified, but responsibility could not, (grey).

2. What if there is an As-Planned Programme?

When there is an as-planned programme available (assuming that programme was accepted and was reasonable),
the initial stage of assessing the as-built critical path is similar to that just described. The APP assists in understating
the intended relationship and dependencies between tasks. Although the planned logic may have been flawed and the
as-built sequence may have changed from what was intended, the real benefit in having an APP is that it removes the
need to assess how much time should have been allowed for any particular task. With a side-by-side comparison of
what was intended vs. what actually happened, one can discretely identify each over-run (or under-run) experienced
along each ABCP. This provides even more transparency to the third party decision maker when deciding which over-
runs establish entitlement to EOT and which represent culpable delay. When concurrent ABCPs are identified, as
illustrated above, this provides invaluable assistance in determining compensation for loss & expense or prolongation.

3. What if there is an As-Planned Programme and frequent updates of that programme?

With frequently updated programmes assessing the ABCP is easier, and less subjective, but requires the same
scrutiny and understanding of the facts to ensure any obvious programming errors are eliminated and/or addressed.
By mapping the float values for each task from update-to-update, on a progressive and forward looking basis, one can
determine which activities were critical to completion (at the time) and how much float deterioration occurred in each
interval between progress updates. By mapping the float in this way, many trends can be established, both on and off

© 2005 - Keane Associates Limited

Page 5 of 5

the critical path. Most importantly, the calculations establishing the ABCP should be readily supportable and rely on
what was reported by the contractor at the time, which is a good starting point from which to establish an initial ABCP.

A “float mapping” exercise is provided in the figure below to demonstrate how progressive float deterioration can be
illustrated along four concurrent ABCPs when frequent progress updates are available.

With the application of common sense and professional judgment the parties should be able to agree fair and
reasonable EOT entitlement. Otherwise, it will be a matter for a tribunal. I have found the approaches described in this
paper to be effective in enabling parties to avoid post-contract disputes as well as assisting tribunals in deciding EOT
entitlement on projects ranging in size from £90K to £400M.

There’s no doubt As-Built Critical Paths are ‘old school’. As with any method of analysis there are pitfalls and this
approach may not be appropriate in every case. ABCP’s are often applied in conjunction with Time Impact or other
forms of deterministic, quantitative delay analysis. ABCPs can also be a powerful tool to demonstrate, and quantify,
successful acceleration or mitigation when project completion would have been much later without mitigation.

Either way, it is important to be aware that ABCP’s exist, are readily supportable, and are here to stay. Like believing
in Santa Claus - and the ability of arbitrators, judges and adjudicators to distinguish fact from fiction – it’s safer to
believe…just in case!

Feel free to contact the author – [email protected] - if you have any feedback or comments or would like more information regarding
the topics addressed in this paper. Additional information can be obtained from www.Keane-Associates.com or from PlanningEngineers.Org,
an organization establish solely for the advancement and sharing of planning and programming knowledge and advice.

The Old School Sheraton House

Exton Street Castle Park
London, SE1 8UE Cambridge, CB3 0AX
Phone: 0207 401 3223 Phone: 01223 370 044
FAX: 0207 401 3232 Fax: 01223 246 210
www.keane-associates.com

© 2005 - Keane Associates Limited