LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.

com/in/basemm/

Implementation of Window Analysis in

Construction Projects

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood ©

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 1 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Introduction
Window analysis is widely used in Construction projects. The purpose of the AACE
(Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering) International Recommended Practice
29R-03 “Forensic Schedule Analysis” is to provide a unifying reference of basic technical
principles and guidelines for the application of critical path method (CPM) scheduling in
forensic schedule analysis.

Method implementation protocols described in RP 29R-03:

 3.1. Observational / Static / Gross (MIP 3.1)

 3.2. Observational / Static / Periodic (MIP 3.2)
 3.3. Observational / Dynamic / Contemporaneous As-Is (MIP 3.3)
 3.4. Observational / Dynamic / Contemporaneous Split (MIP 3.4)
 3.5. Observational / Dynamic / Modified or Recreated (MIP 3.5)
 3.6. Modeled / Additive / Single Base (MIP 3.6)
 3.7. Modeled / Additive / Multiple Base (MIP 3.7)
 3.8. Modeled / Subtractive / Single Simulation (MIP 3.8)
 3.9. Modeled / Subtractive / Multiple Base (MIP 3.9)

Methods from MIP 3.1 to MIP 3.5 are “Observational” methods based on “comparisons”
between Baseline Programme(s) and Updated Programme(s) without insertion of Delay
Fragnets. As per recommended practice No. 29R-03 “The observational method consists of
analyzing the schedule by examining a schedule, by itself or in comparison with another,
without the analyst making any changes to the schedule to simulate any specific scenario.”

Methods MIP 3.6 and MIP 3.7 are “Modeled” methods because the Analyst in these methods
will insert delay fragnets into the Schedule/Programme to represent the delay events. As per
recommended practice No. 29R-03 “In preparing a modeled analysis the analyst inserts or
extracts activities representing delay events into or from a CPM network and compares the
calculated results of the “before‟ and “after” states”.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 2 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Methods MIP 3.8 “Collapsed as-built (CAB)” and MIP 3.9 “Windows Collapsed As-Built”
are “Subtractive” methods where the Analyst subtract activities from “As-Built”
Programmes. As per recommended practice No. 29R-03 “The subtractive modeling method
consists of comparing a CPM schedule with another schedule that the analyst has created by
subtracting schedule elements (i.e. delays) from the first schedule for the purpose of modeling
a certain scenario”. Methods (MIP 3.8 and MIP 3.9) require creating As-built Programmes
and usually applied in in the absence of Baseline Programme and updates.

Methods MIP 3.6 “Impacted as-planned” or Method MIP 3.7 “Window Analysis” are
widely used in Construction projects.

Method MIP 3.6 “Impacted as-planned” is very similar to Method MIP 3.7 often called
“Window Analysis”, except that in “Impacted as-planned” method there is only one
window for the analysis interval from project start date (or the Cutoff Date of pervious EOT
claim) till Cutoff Date of the new EOT claim. As per RP 29R-03 “MIP 3.6 is a single base
method, distinguished from MIP 3.7 as a multiple base method. The additive simulation is
performed on one network analysis model representing the plan. Hence, it is a static logic
method as opposed to a dynamic logic method.”

In this article I explained Method MIP 3.7 (Window Analysis) in a table format with the
AACE RP 29R-03 text on the left side and my explanation and comments on the right side
with paragraphs and some extracted texts from the RP in blue color.

This article is based on my experience and understanding of the AACE Recommended

Practice RP "29R-03" and not reviewed or commented by any other party.

Published on 30th January 2022.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 3 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

References:

 AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 Rev. April 25, 2011

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood

Planning Manager
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 4 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Point MIP 3.7 as per Recommended Practice

Comments
No. No. 29R-03
Points No.1 to No.4 describes the MIP 3.7 method as
follow:
 Point No.1: Modeled technique
1 A. Description  Point No.2: Multiple base method
 Point No.3: Dynamic logic method
 Point No.4: Retrospective method

MIP 3.7 is a modeled technique since it

Clarifications:
relies on a simulation of a scenario based
 The terms “CPM model” or “network
on a CPM model. The simulation consists
analysis model” refers to the Baseline
of the insertion or addition of activities
Programme of the project and its updates at
2 representing delays or changes into a
start of each window.
network analysis model representing a
 The term “insertion or addition of activities”
plan to determine the hypothetical impact
refers to the delay fragnets inserted in
of those inserted activities to the network.
Programmes to formulate the delay.
Hence, it is an additive model.

Clarifications:
 The term “base” refers to Programme(s)
updated as of start of each window.
 The term “network analysis models” refers to
Programmes.
 Contemporaneous updates are the updated
MIP 3.7 is a multiple base method, Programmes submitted by the Contractor to the
distinguished from MIP 3.6 as a single Consultant/Engineer in weekly and monthly
base method. The additive simulation is reports.
performed on multiple network analysis  Modified contemporaneous updates are the
models representing the plan, typically an updated Programmes submitted by the
3
update schedule, contemporaneous, Contractor to the Consultant/Engineer in
modified contemporaneous, or recreated. weekly and monthly reports that may contain
Each base model creates a period of changes to the original logic and relations
analysis that confines the quantification of between the remaining activities.
delay impact.  The term “recreated” refers to Reconstructed
Updates.

The “base” for first window is the original Baseline

Programme of the Project (without any update) and the
“base” for other windows is the Programme updated
as of start of each window.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 5 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

In windows analysis, the Programme updated as of

start of each window is considered the baseline of the
remaining activities that sets a new Project Target
Completion Date to be achieved. If the target
completion date is delayed by end of the window this
means a delay occurred during the window that should
be investigated, studied and analyzed.
Accordingly, the delays are measured (in each window)
as the differences between the Target/anticipated
Completion Dates at start and end of each window, not
4 as the differences between the anticipated Completion
dates and the Original Contractual Project Completion
Date.
Due to using new “Base” at start of each window this
method (MIP 3.7) is considered “multiple base
method”.

While as stated in the RP, the MIP 3.6 “Impacted as-

planned” method “does not require an as-built schedule
or contemporaneous schedule updates”.

Clarifications:
 The term “updates” refers to the
contemporaneous Programme updated as of
start of each window.
 The term “non-progress revisions” refers to
the use of Programme updated at start of each
window as the base of the window.
Because the updates typically reflect non-
progress revisions, it is a dynamic logic As explained in the RP “The dynamic logic variation
5 method as opposed to a static logic typically involves the use of schedule updates whose
method. network logic may differ to varying degrees from the
baseline and from each other. This variation considers
the changes in logic that were incorporated during the
project.”

“The static logic variation compares a plan consisting

of one set of network logic to the as-built state of the
same network. The term “static” refers to the fact that
observation consists of the comparison of an as-built
schedule to just one set of as-planned network logic.”

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 6 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Clarifications:

 The term “benefit of hindsight” refers to the

selection of “hindsight” or “blindsight”
school of thought in insertion of the delay
events or in recreating updated Programmes
(which is at the option of the analyst).
 TOC: Taking over certificate.
MIP 3.7 is a retrospective analysis since
As stated in the RP “Retrospective analyses are
6 the existence of the multiple periods means
performed after the delay event has occurred and the
the analyst has the benefit of hindsight.
impacts are known. The timing may be soon after the
delay event but prior to the completion of the overall
project, or after the completion of the entire project”.

The term “timing” refers to the time when the analysis

is performed, which could be before or after the project
actual completion date (TOC date), but in all cases it is
after the delay events had occurred.

7 B. Common Names

1. Window analysis
2. Windows analysis The most common name of MIP 3.7 method is
3. Impacted update analysis “Window Analysis”.
8 4. Time impact analysis (TIA)
5. Time impact evaluation (TIE) In this article the name “Window Analysis” is used
6. Fragnet insertion instead of MIP 3.7.
7. Fragnet analysis

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 7 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

C. Recommended Source Validation

9
Protocols

Chapters SVP 2.1, SVP 2.3, SVP 2.4 of RP 29R-03

describe the Programmes that will be used in the
analysis (such as baseline Programmes and updated
Programmes) and how to identify and quantify the
1. Implement SVP 2.1 (baseline validation)
delay events.
and,
As stated in the RP “The intent of the source
2. Implement SVP 2.3 (update validation)
10 validation protocols (SVP) is to provide guidance
and,
in the process of assuring the validity of the
3. Implement SVP 2.4 (delay ID and
source input data that forms the foundation of the
quantification)
various forensic schedule analysis methodologies.
A thorough understanding of the SVP is a
prerequisite to the competent use of the MIP.”

SVP 2.1 Baseline Schedule Selection, Validation,

11
and Rectification:

A. General Considerations

The baseline schedule is the starting point of

The Analyst in this validation process will check if
most types of forensic schedule analyses.
the Baseline Programme can be used in the
“The test is that if it is possible to build the
12 analysis. The analyst will not test, validate or
project in the manner indicated in the schedule
evaluate the Baseline Programme for planning,
and still be in compliance with the contract,
scheduling or project control purposes.
then do not make any subjective changes to
improve it or make it more reasonable.”

B. Recommended Protocol:
The Analyst must make sure of using the latest
approved Baseline Programme of the project. If the
Ensure that the baseline schedule is the
Analyst will not use the approved Baseline
earliest, conformed plan for the project. If it
Programme for the analysis, the Analyst must
is not the earliest, conformed plan, be prepared
explain the reason.
12.1 to identify the significant differences and the
reasons why the earliest, conformed plan is not
For example, if a previous EOT claim was granted,
being used as the baseline schedule.
the Baseline of the analysis will be the Revised
Programme updated as of the Cutoff date of the
pervious granted EOT claim.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 8 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

The WBS and the activities details in the Baseline

Ensure that the work breakdown and the level
Programme should be sufficient to reflect the
12.2 of detail are sufficient for the intended
impact of the inserted delay events (fragnets) and
analysis.
obtaining accurate delay analysis results.

Ensure that the data date is set at notice-to- If the first window starts with Project original start
proceed (or earlier) with no progress data for date (Project Commencement Date), the Baseline
12.3 any schedule activity that occurred after the should not contain any actual data and the Data
data date. Date should be the Project start/commencement
date.
The longest path of the baseline Programme may
Ensure that there is at least one continuous
not be continuous due to existing of unnecessary
critical path, using the longest path criterion
lags or constraints that should be removed or
that starts at the earliest occurring schedule
replaced with activities or relations. The Longest
12.4 activity in the network (start milestone) and
path should not contain unexplained gabs between
ends at the latest occurring schedule activity in
the Project start milestone (or the Data Date) and
the network (finish milestone).
Project Completion milestone.

Ensure that all activities have at least one

predecessor, except for the start milestone, and Ensure that there is no open ends in the
12.5
one successor, except for the finish milestone. Programme.

If full scope of the project is not represented in the

Baseline Programme, the Impacted Programmes
will not be accurate.
Ensure that the full scope of the
For example, if the Baseline Programme does not
12.6 project/contract is represented in the schedule.
contain the “authorities handing over” activities,
the impact of delayed related activities will not be
accurate.

Investigate and document the basis of any

milestones dates that violate the contract All milestones in the Programme must be in line
12.7
provisions. with the Contract Conditions.

The Programme must be in line with the Contract

Conditions. Usually these validation practices are
Investigate and document the basis of any other
part of the reviewing process of the Baseline
aspect of the schedule that violates the
12.8 Programme by the Consultant when it was
contract provisions.
submitted by the Contractor. The analyst is advised
to recheck the same.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 9 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Document and provide the basis for each Any rectification made to the Baseline programme
12.9 change made to the baseline for purposes of as a result of the above steps should be recoded and
rectification. explained.

In general, the Analyst must make sure that

Ensure that the calendars used for schedule
nonworking days in the calendars are accurate.
calculations reflect actual working day
In addition, the nonworking days must be
constraints and restrictions actually existing at
12.10 considered during the period of the delay (after the
the time when the baseline schedule was
project original completion date), not only during
prepared.
the original period of the Project.

There are different options that determine how the

scheduling software (Primavera for example) is
calculating the schedule, such as “Retain Logic” or
Document and explain the software settings
12.11 “Progress Override”, and how the float is
used for the baseline schedule.
calculated, for example the “Must Finish by”
option to be checked and the Analyst must record
these options.

13 C. Recommended Enhanced Protocol:

The level of detail is such that no single

schedule activity (other than a milestone
activity created solely for the purpose of The baseline activities should be at sufficient level
payment) carries a contract payment value of of detail suitable for delay analysis. One of the
more than one half of one percent (½%) of total methods to verify the level of detail is to make sure
13.1
contract payment value per unit of activity that the costs loaded to the activities are not huge
duration, and no more than five percent (5%) compared to the project total cost. The analyst may
of total contract payment value per schedule rely on other factors such as activity durations.
activity.

For example, the “submission and review”

activities can be separated in to two activities, one
Create separate activities for each responsible for “Preparation and submission by Contractor” and
13.2 party.
one for “Review and approval by Consultant” if it
will affect the analysis results.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 10 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Record any constraint used in the baseline

Programme.
 Controlling constraint such as milestones
with constraint that control/linked to the
start of other activities.
Document the basis of all controlling and non-
 Non-controlling constraints such as
13.3 controlling constraints.
milestones used to present key dates
(completion of particular activities) and
linked to the project completion milestone
directly so that it does not control other
activities in the programme.

Replace controlling constraints, except for If a controlling constraint or milestone is affecting

13.4 the start milestone and the finish milestone, the analysis results, these constraints should be
with logic and/or activities. replaced with activities or relations.

Because delay scenarios often involve factors For example, if an authority handing over process
external to the original contract assumptions was not required when the Baseline Programme
when the baseline was created, it may be was prepared, and then this authority NOC became
13.5
necessary to add activities or enhance the required as a result of added scope, the analyst
level of detail beyond that contained in the should add this “Authority handing over” process/
baseline. activities to the Baseline Programme.

Example#1, if the activity description is

“submission and approval of shop drawings” the
activity should be separated in to two activities:
 One activity for “preparation and
If the description of the schedule activity is
submission by the Contractor”
too general or vague to properly ascertain the
 and one activity for “review and approval
13.6 scope, the schedule activity should be
subdivided into detailed components using by the Engineer”.
other progress records.
Example#2, if the activity description is “Block
works, MEP 1 st Fix and Plaster” it should be
subdivided into three activities to represent each
work.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 11 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

SVP 2.3 Schedule Updates: Validation,

14
Rectification, and Reconstruction:

A. General Considerations

SVP 2.3 discusses issues involved in

This protocol is to review the left side of the data
evaluating the project schedule updates for
date (actual data) in the updated programmes.
use in forensic schedule analysis.
The schedule update consists of the as-built
The purpose of these steps is make sure that the
15 portion on the left side of the data date, the as-
updated programme reflects the project status
planned portion on the right side of the data
accurately as of the Data date or when it was
date, and the data date itself.
prepared.
Because SVP 2.1 addresses the issues relevant
to the as-planned portion, …, the focus of SVP
2.3 is on the practice of updating the schedule
with progress information and the reliable use
of that progress data.

B. Recommended Protocol: The Project scheduler (Planning Engineer) who

prepared the updated programmes can provide the
Interview the project scheduler or other basis of his updates such as submittal logs,
15.1
persons-most-knowledgeable for updated data materials delivery logs, and inspection logs, which
collection and data entry procedures to evaluate will help the analyst in evaluating the accuracy of
the reliability of the statusing data. the updates.

The Analyst must collect the contemporaneous

updates which were updated as of start of each
Assemble all schedule updates so that they
window, accordingly the windows intervals should
cover the entire project duration from start
15.2 be identified first. These updates must cover the
to finish or up to the current real-time data
analysis period from Project start date (or Cutoff
date.
date of previous submitted EOT) till the Cutoff date
of the EOT claim under review.

The updates are usually submitted in the weekly

15.3 Use officially submitted schedule updates.
and monthly reports.

Ensure that the update chain starts with a

The updated programmes should be based on the
15.4 validated baseline.
approved Baseline Programme or approved revised
programmes.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 12 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

The actual start and finish dates assigned to the

Check on the consistency of the actual start and
activities from update to update should be identical.
15.5 finish dates assigned to each schedule activity
However differences could exist as a result of
from update to update.
corrections made by the Project scheduler.

For each update, identify all changes made The updated Programmes could contain changes to
that extend, reduce, or change the longest path the activities relations that is usually recoded in a
15.6 or the controlling path to an interim contractual “change log” submitted along with the updated
milestone. programmes. The Analyst is requested to identify
these changes.

The activities updates in terms of actual start, actual

finish, remaining duration, and percent complete
should be in line with the available project logs.

Usually, these validation practices are part of

reviewing the updated Programmes by the
Consultant when it was submitted in weekly and
monthly reports. The analyst is advised to recheck
the same.

If other progress records are available, check Example#1, based on the material delivery logs
the remaining duration and percentage the analyst can identify if the percent complete
15.7
complete values for consistency with these values and remaining durations of the “delivery
other progress records and make. activities” were entered accurately in the updated
programmes.

Example#2, based on the inspection logs the

analyst can identify if the percent complete values
and remaining durations of the “installation
activities” were entered accurately in the updated
programmes.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 13 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

16 D. Special Procedures
Based on the selected window intervals criteria, if
the analysis requires a Programme updated as of
certain data date which is not available (not
submitted in weekly or monthly reports), the
analyst can recreate these updated programmes.

Recreation of updated programmes can be done by

two methods:

 Backward recreation: by removing actuals

from the nearest available later updated
Pogramme (shifting the Data Date back).

 Forward recreation: by updating the

nearest earlier updated Programme.

The analyst should make sure that the recreated

Programme revision was in use as of the data date.

1. Reconstructed Updates For example, if the Programme updated as of start

17 of the month was Revision 1 and at the end of the
month the Contractor submitted Revised
Programme Revision 2, and the required update is
mid of the month, the analyst should use
Programme Revision 1 to recreate Programme
updated as of mid the month because Revision 2
was not yet in use as of that date.

Recreation by removing actuals (Backward

recreation) can be done as follow:

1. Select a Programme updated as of the

nearest date later than the required data
date.
2. Set the data date to the required earlier date
and reschedule the Programme.
3. Filter all activates with actual dates (start of
finish) later than the data date.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 14 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

4. Remove the actual data from these

activities.
 For activities that were not started
as of the new data date remove all
actual data and return the original
duration.
 For activities still in-progress set
the remaining durations based on
“Hindsight” or “Blindsight”
Method.

5. Reschedule the Programme.

There are two main schools of thought on

recreating a partially statused schedule.

The first school of thought, called the

hindsight method, states that since the
When recreating updated Programme there are two
forensic scheduler is performing the analysis
schools of thought on how to set the remaining
after the job has been completed, the analyst
duration for the in-progress activities.
should use the actual performance dates and
18 durations to recreate the updates.
In “Hindsight” method the remaining duration (of
the recreated in-progress activities) equal to the
The second school of thought, called the
actual remaining duration as of the data date:
blinders or the blindsight method, requires the
analyst to pretend that the analyst does not
have access to actual performance data and
simulate the project scheduler’s mindset at the
time the update was actually being prepared.
Therefore, the analyst needs to consider what

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 15 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

the scheduler would have assigned as the

remaining duration for that schedule activity
at that time. If the analyst does not have
reliable access to the scheduler’s
contemporaneous bases for assigning
remaining durations, the analyst needs to be as
objective as possible and follow a remaining
duration formula.

Outlined below are the two methods:

a. “Hindsight” Method
In this method, the actual status of the schedule
RD = AD - (DD - AS)
activity in the succeeding schedule update
period is used to calculate the remaining
RD: Remaining Duration
duration of the previous schedule update.
OD: Original Duration
This is delineated in the formula below:
AD: Overall actual duration
i. RD = actual duration of succeeding update
DD: Data Date
- (data date - actual start of activity) where the
AS: Actual start date
data date is the data date of the existing
schedule update that needs to be statused.

In this method, if there is no exact

b. “Blindsight” Method contemporaneous basis for establishing the
In this method, it is assumed that the analyst remaining duration for the in-progress activities
does not have the update schedule for the (such as recoded expected date of material delivery
succeeding period and has no knowledge of the at that time), the analyst can set the remaining
19
project conditions later than the update under duration based on the following remaining duration
investigation. Therefore, the analyst must formulas:
stand in the shoes of the scheduler at the time
of the project. Note that the progress curve RD = OD – (DD – AS)
created by this method assumes a straight line. or RD = 1 Day

i. IF: data date (DD) - actual start of the Blindsight (i):

activity (AS) < original duration (OD), THEN: If the activity original duration (OD) is bigger than
the elapsed period of the activity as of the new data
20
remaining duration (RD) = OD - (DD - AS) date:
If OD > (DD – AS) then
RD = OD – (DD – AS)

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 16 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Blindsight (ii):
If the activity original duration is less than the
elapsed period of the activity as of the new data
date:
If OD < (DD – AS) then
RD = 1 Day

21 ii. IF: DD - AS > OD, THEN: RD = 1

Blindsight (iii):
If the analyst have reliable access to the scheduler’s
contemporaneous bases for assigning remaining
durations (such as know expected date of material
22
delivery), the Analyst can use the same for
establishing the remaining duration as it was
thought be at that time.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 17 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

D. Special Procedures

3. Changing the Contemporaneous Project

Schedule for the Analysis:

Due to the complex nature of construction projects

and the fact that CPM schedules are models of
reality, not reality itself, the analyst will inevitably
encounter an instance when the contemporaneous
project schedule contains an anomaly that could
affect the assessment of critical project delay.

Instead of completing the analysis using a schedule

with an anomaly or entirely abandoning the
schedules because of the anomaly, the analyst has
the option to correct the anomaly in the
contemporaneous project schedule and use the
corrected schedule as the basis for the analysis.

If there are no restrictions in the Contract

These changes and how they affect the Conditions preventing correction of the
23
contemporaneous data, plan, and information submitted updated Programmes, the analyst can
reported, should be disclosed by the analyst along correct anomalies funded in the updates. These
with the objective reason for those changes. corrections should be recoded with explanation.

However, absent contract language mandating

the use of the contemporaneous schedules to
quantify delay, corrections to the contemporaneous
schedules can be properly considered by the
analyst without eroding the credibility of the
resulting analysis.

The following is a discussion of examples of

revisions to the contemporaneous schedules that
may fit within the boundaries of such corrections:

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 18 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

A. Correcting a wrong Actual Start or Finish

Date:

Sometimes, the actual start and finish dates

recorded in the contemporaneous project schedules
may be inaccurate. The analyst may consider
relying on other contemporaneous documents to
The analyst may correct the actual dates based
correct these dates. The analyst may limit the
on contemporaneous documents such as shop
correction of the wrong actual start and finish
drawings submittal logs, material submittal logs
dates to paths of work that have the potential to
material delivery logs, inspection logs.
delay the project and are on critical or near-critical
These corrections may change the longest path
paths.
of the updated programme.
24 When an analyst chooses to correct a wrong actual
date in the schedule, the analyst should be mindful
If the project team (such as project manager) at
that correcting a date may result in a shift in the
the time of preparing the updated programme
critical path.
has made decisions based on these updates and
longest path, the corrections should not be
If the project team never recognized that the date
made, subject to the analyst evaluation.
was wrong, and relied on the schedule generated
by calculations based on that date, the correction
should not be made if the focus of the analysis is
on the mindset of the team on which decisions
were made at the time, as opposed to developing
an accurate as-built schedule.

The analyst may add, delete or modify relations

B. Correcting Schedule Anomalies: or activities in the updated programmes if the
logic is impossible or not permitted by the
A schedule anomaly is any feature in the schedule Contract.
that creates a physically or logically impossible
sequence of work or a sequence of work that is not Examples of allowed corrections:
permitted by the conformed contract provisions.  Adding missing relations between shop
drawings and installations.
25 These features may include:  Adding missing relations between
i. An incorrect logic relationship material delivery and installation.
ii. A missing logic relationship  Adding missing relations between
iii. An incorrect activity based on described installations and authorities inspections
scope of the activity and handing over.
iv. A missing activity  Adding missing authority inspection
activities to the Programme.
 Deleting or closing not required
activities.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 19 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

 Adding missing relations between

installation activities (for example:
adding missing relations between
installation of MEP high-level services
and installation false ceiling).

If a sequence of work is possible and contractually If the activities in the updated programme are
permitted, it should not be corrected even if, in constructible and in line with the Contract
25.1
the opinion of the analyst, there is a “better” way conditions, the corrections should not be made
of performing the work. to enhance the programme.

C. Bringing a Revision Back in Time to

Represent Added or Changed Work

This situation occurs when a schedule revision or

fragnet (fragmentary network representing added Example for this case:
or changed work) was inserted into the
contemporaneous project schedules well after the If the Employer instructed the Contractor to add
change or event that necessitated the revision new scope or variation works, and the
occurred. Contractor submitted separate schedule
(fragnet) to represent these new works to the
If the schedule revision or fragnet was not inserted Consultant and continued in updating the
into the appropriate contemporaneous project original Programme in weekly reports without
26 schedule, but was recognized and identified in a inserting these activities.
contemporaneous project document as a change
that should have been made, then the analyst may In this case, the Analyst may decide to insert
decide to insert the schedule revision or fragnet the submitted schedule/fragnet into the
into the contemporaneous schedule update in effect Programme updated as of the date when the
when the change occurred to measure the resulting instruction was made.
delay.
If the updated programme (as of the date of
This correction involves bringing back (or instruction) is not available, the analyst may
inserting) the schedule revision or fragnet to the create it as explained earlier.
point or nearest the moment in time) when the
event occurred.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 20 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

d. Splitting an Activity
Typically, updates increase in detail as the If the project scheduler was increasing the
schedule progresses, therefore the number of activity details (or activities numbers) from
activities increase, not necessarily an increase in update to update, the analysis must apply the
scope but an increase in detail. When a variance same changes to previous updates but
analysis is performed between two updates with maintaining the same overall duration of the
different activity counts, exact correlation is not split activity and maintaining its relations.
27
possible since the more detailed activity set did not
exist in the previous update. Therefore, the For example, this case can be applicable for
detailed activity set should be replicated in the provisional sum activities which were inserted
previous update with the same planning duration, as a summary activity when the baseline was
logic and dates of the summary activity. prepared, and detailed later after defining the
exact scope and design.

All of these corrections should be described in the

analyst’s report along with the basis of the
corrections so that the other parties and the fact
finders understand the changes that the analyst
made to the contemporaneous schedule….. The changes should be recoded with the
28
…..Finally, the analyst must also be consistent and basis/reason for each change.
maintain independence and objectivity. The
analyst cannot limit its corrections to those that
have the effect of improving the analyst’s Client’s
position.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 21 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

E. Minimum Recommended Implementation

Protocols

Window Analysis (without Concurrent delay events)

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 22 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

E. Minimum Recommended
29
Implementation Protocols

The analyst should be aware of all previous

approved/granted EOT claims in order to establish the
start date of the analysis which is the Cutoff date of the
previous granted EOT, and to establish the Target
Recognize all contract time extensions
29.1 project Completion Date which is the Revised
granted.
Completion date based on the approved extension of
time.
In the absence of approved EOT claim, the start date of
the analysis is the Project commencement date.

For each delay event prepare a “Chronology” report

that can contain the following sections:
 Event summary
 Event impact
 Contractual entitlement
Identify and quantify delays that are to be
 Detailed chronology with references (source
29.2 evaluated, including source documents on
documents)
which they are based.

The references could be letters, minutes of meetings,

shop drawing submittal logs, material submittal logs,
material inspections reports (MIR’s), works inspection
reports (WIR’s), photos,… etc.

The window intervals can be determined at this step.

“Determine the frequency, duration, and placement of

the analysis intervals.”

As explained in the RP, the “Analysis interval” refers

29.2.1 to the individual time periods used in analyzing the
schedule. The frequency, duration and the placement of
the analysis intervals are significant technical factors
that influence the determination of concurrency”.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 23 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

As explained in the RP “There are two main ways that

the analysis intervals are placed.

 The first method is to adopt the update periods

used during the project by using the data dates
of the updates, which are usually monthly or
some other regular periods dictated by reporting
or payment requirements.

 The other is the “event-based method” in

which the cut-off dates are determined by key
project events such as the attainment of a
project milestone, occurrence of a major delay
event, change in the project critical path based
on progress (or lack thereof), or a major
revision of the schedule.”

The window intervals should not overlap.

In case of few delay events occurred in long period, the

“events based method” can be used to reduce the
number of windows and accordingly reduce the effort
in preparing the analysis.

After preparing the list of all events and window

intervals, identify the delay events occurred during
each window.

Clarifications:
 “un-impacted schedule” is the Programme
Select the as-planned network to be utilized
updated as of start of each window.
as the “un-impacted schedule”.
If not using the baseline, select the
29.3 The analyst is recommended to start the analysis
contemporaneous update that existed just
process with a programme that does not show a delay
prior to the initial delay that is to be
which is the Baseline programme or an updated
evaluated.
programme prior start of the first delay event.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 24 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

The analyst should identify the programmes updated as

Identify the schedule updates, or of start of each window.
29.4 recreated updates, that correlate to the If a Programme updated as of particular data date is not
beginning of each analysis interval. available, the analyst may recreate it as explained
earlier.

Clarifications:
 The term “status the update schedules to the
beginning of the delay(s)” refers to recreating
Unless very accurate daily project updates just prior to beginning of the delay
documentation data is available, there is events.
generally no improvement in analysis  The term “updates statuses to the data dates
accuracy with an attempt to status the used for each period” refers to the available
29.4.1
update schedules to the beginning of the contemporaneous updated programmes.
delay(s) over the use of the analysis
updates statused to the data dates used for When identifying the window intervals, the use of
each period. “Event-based method” in the analysis will not be
more accurate than the “Monthly-based method” (for
example) if the analyst cannot recreate very accurate
updates at start of each delay event.

Clarifications:
 The term “un-impacted schedule” refers to the
Programme updated as of start of each window.
Insert an activity or activities (fragnet) into
Insert all the delay events occurred during the window
the “un-impacted schedule” to represent
29.5 in to the Programme updated as of start of the window,
the selected delay(s).….
in the form of fragnet, in order to calculate its impact.

For continuous events the analyst has the option to

follow “hindsight” or “blindsight” method as
explained earlier.

. ….Ensure that the impact events are The events should be accurately correlated to their
29.5.1
chronologically inserted into the proper windows.
updated schedules.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 25 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Calculate or schedule the new schedule After insertion each delay fragnet, reschedule the
created using the “un-impacted schedule” Programme in order to record the impact of each event
with the fragnet or activity inserted. in each window separately.

In the most basic implementations (i.e. bar Calculating the impact by hand (in excel) is possible in
29.6 chart evaluation) it may be necessary to small programmes/projects.
calculate the impact by hand.

The resultant network is considered the The programme that include all events occurred during
“impacted schedule”. a window will be considered the “Impacted
Programme” for that window.

Zero out the durations of all activities in In order to make sure that the delays fragnets are
the added fragnet and verify that when inserted accurately without changing the programme
calculated, there is no change to the logic, make the fragnet durations equal to zero and
29.7
completion date from the un-impacted reschedule the programme then make sure that the
schedule completion date. This verifies that completion date is identical to the un-impacted
there is no added logic in the fragnet that programme completion date.
creates a delay situation.

Clarifications:
 NTP: Notice to Proceed Milestone,
Commencement Date milestone or project start
milestone.
Ensure that the resulting schedule has at
The longest path for each impacted Programme must
least one continuous critical path, using
be continuous from the data date till project completion
the longest path criterion that starts at NTP
milestone.
or some earlier start milestone and ends at a
29.8
finish milestone, which is the latest
If the longest path contain unnecessary lags or
occurring schedule activity in the network,
constraints, remove these lags or constraints or replace
after the insertion of delay activities.
the same with activities, then re-investigate the longest
path till reaching accurate continuous longest path.

The NTP (Notice to Proceed) milestone will be on the

longest path if the first window start date is the project
commencement date.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 26 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

The following figure showing non-continuous longest path that should be corrected.

The analyst must record how the fragnets are linked to

Tabulate and justify each change made to
the un-impacted programme and must record any
29.9 an update schedule to create the impacted
corrections made to the longest path, the same must be
schedule.
included in the analysis report.

Move to the next window, and insert the delay fragnets

in to the programme that contain the previous impact
which could be one of the following:
Insert model fragnets in the correct
 Impacted Programme (of previous window)
29.9.2 updated schedule containing previous
updated as of end of the previous window.
impacts, period by period.
 Or the contemporaneous un-impacted
Programme updated as of end of the previous
window.

Clarifications:
 The term “controlling chain of activities”
refers the activities controlling or leading the
Use both the longest path and the least
Project Completion Date.
29.10 float criteria to identify the controlling
chain of activities.
Identify the “Longest Path” for each programme by
using the “longest path” filter or the “least float” filter
in the software.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 27 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

In some cases there is difference between the “Longest

path activities” and “Least float activities”, this could
be a result of using “constraints” in the schedule,
however, in most cases the longest path will contain the
least float activities.

A new analysis period needs to be

established with each significant change in The window’s intervals (starts and ends) should be
29.11 the critical path chain of activities, and with identified before starting the analysis as explained in
each available contemporaneous update point no. 29.2.1.
schedule.

This step is part of the fragnet insertion (step no.29.5)

above.

Similar to the recreation process, the insertion of

continuous (non-closed/ incomplete) delay events in a
window can be made using either hindsight or
Correlate the impacted schedule with each
blindsight methods.
available contemporaneous update,
identifying and using either hindsight or
 In hindsight method the fragnet duration
29.12 blindsight for establishing remaining
beyond end of the window equal to the actual
durations for the incomplete fragnet
remaining duration of the delay event.
activities.

 In blindsight method the fragnet duration

beyond the end of the window equal to one day.

The following figures showing the hindsight and

blindsight methods in insertion the fragnets of
continuous events for window No.3.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 28 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 29 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Compare the following Programmes with each other

for each window:
a) Un-impacted Programme updated as of start
of the window.
b) Impacted Programme updated as of start of
the window.
29.13 Quantify net delays and gains.
c) Impacted Programme progressed till end of the
window (updated as of end of the window)
d) Un-impacted Programme updated as of end of
the window.

Then quantify net delays and gains for each window.

Prepare a tabulation that summarizes the

Prepare a table that summarizes the results of the full
variances quantified for each analysis
analysis period for all windows.
period and reconcile the total to the result
29.14 MIP 3.1 Observational / Static / Gross (MIP 3.1): is
that would be obtained by a competent
comparison between the updated programme at start of
implementation of MIP 3.1.
the window and the updated programme at end of the
window without insertion of fragnets.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 30 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

H. Identification and Quantification of Concurrent

Delays and Pacing

Window Analysis (with Concurrent delay events)

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 31 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

H. Identification and Quantification of

30 Identification of Analysis Parameters
Concurrent Delays and Pacing

Determine whether compensable delay by List all “Contractor- caused” delay events and “Owner-
30.1
contractor or owner is at issue. caused” delay events.

Review the Contract conditions for clauses related to

concurrent delay. For example, some contracts will
Identify and understand all related
30.2 express clearly that in case of concurrent delay the
contractual language.
Contractor will be entitled for extension of time only
without cost compensation.

When writing the events chronology and simulating the

delay fragnets, distinguish the cause of delay (which is
For each delay event, distinguish the cause
30.3 the delay event) from the effect of delay (which is the
from the effect of delay.
impacted activities). This is important for preparation
of accurate impacted programmes.

As explained in the RP “Under the “Literal Theory”

the delay events have to be literally concurrent in time,
Determine whether literal or functional
30.4 as in “happening at the same time”. In contrast, under
concurrency theory is to be used.
the “Functional Theory”, the delays need to be
occurring within the same analysis period”.

Determine the criteria for identifying the near-critical

If applicable, determine the near-critical
30.5 activities which is in most cases less than the window
threshold (see Subsection 4.3.)
period.

As explained in the RP, the “Analysis interval” refers

If applicable, determine the frequency,
to the individual time periods used in analyzing the
duration, and placement of the analysis
30.6 schedule. The frequency, duration and the placement of
intervals.
the analysis intervals are significant technical factors
that influence the determination of concurrency”.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 32 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

The analysis process will comprise of the following comparisons for each window:

Comparisons Programmes

Un-impacted contemporaneous Programme updated as of start of the window (DD1)

1st
Comparison
Un-impacted contemporaneous Programme updated as of end of the window (DD2)

2nd Un-impacted contemporaneous Programme updated as of start of the window (DD1)

Comparison Impacted Programme (DD1)

3rd Impacted Programme (DD1)

Comparison Impacted Programme updated as of end of the window (DD2)

4th Impacted Programme updated as of end of the window (DD2)

Comparison Un-impacted contemporaneous Programme updated as of end of the window (DD2)

The following figure show the required programmes and comparisons required for each
window:

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 33 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Clarifications:
1. The un-impacted contemporaneous Programme updated as of start of the window
(DD1), is referred to in the RP as “the pre-insertion schedule update(s) corresponding
to the analysis interval” or “the un-impacted schedule for that analysis interval”.

2. The un-impacted contemporaneous Programme updated as of end of the window

(DD2), is referred to in the RP as “the as-built” or “the pre-insertion baseline of the
subsequent analysis interval”.

3. The impacted Programme (DD1), is referred to in the RP as “the impacted schedule”

or “impacted schedule for the analysis interval”.

4. The impacted Programme updated as of end of the window (DD2), is referred to in

the RP as “the same schedule recalculated with the progress data and the data date of
the subsequent analysis interval” or “progressed version of the analysis interval”.

31 First Comparison (End vs. Start):

The updates should be validated first as explained

For each analysis interval, compare the
earlier then compare the un-impacted Programme
pre-insertion schedule update(s)
updated as of start of the window to the un-impacted
corresponding to the analysis interval to the
Programme updated as of end of the window.
32 as-built, and discretely identify and
classify by causation all delays on those
This comparison is made to find if there is delay
chains of activities that are near-critical in
occurred during the window and to identify the delayed
the pre-insertion schedule update.
activities and the reasons of these delays.

Condition No.1.1 (End vs. Start):

If project completion dates in both programmes are the
same (regardless of longest path activities).
33
Conclusion: No delay occurred during this window
and the analyst can move to the next window.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 34 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Condition No.1.2 (End vs. Start):

If project completion date of programme updated as of
end of the window is earlier than the project
34 completion date of programme updated as of start of
the window.

Conclusion: Gain of time occurred during this window

and the analyst can move to the next window.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 35 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Condition No.1.3 (End vs. Start):

If project completion date of programme updated as of
end of the window is later than the project completion
35 date of programme updated as of start of the window.

Conclusion: Delay occurred during the window and

the analyst must move to the other comparisons.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 36 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

36 Second Comparison (Impacted vs. Start):

Insert those discrete delay activities into

the pre-insertion update and compare the
Compare the Impacted Programme (updated as of
result of the impacted schedule to the un-
37 start of the window) with the Un-impacted
impacted schedule for that analysis
Programme (updated as of start of the window).
interval that resulted from the insertion of
the claimed delays.

Condition No.2.1 (Impacted vs. Start):

If project completion dates in both Programmes are the

38 same.
Conclusion: the inserted fragnet has no impact (did not
cause critical delay) and the analyst must find other
reason/event of the delay.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 37 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Condition No.2.2 (Impacted vs. Start):

If project completion date in the Impacted Programme is
later than the project completion date of Programme
updated as of start of the window.
39
Conclusion: the inserted fragnet/ event has an impact.

The analyst must calculate the impact of all events

occurred during the window.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 38 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Third Comparison (Impacted End vs. Impacted

40
Start):

Compare the longest path of the impacted

schedule for the analysis interval with the
Compare the Impacted Programme updated as of start
longest path of the same schedule
41 of the window with the same programme (Impacted
recalculated with the progress data and the
Programme) updated as of end of the window.
data date of the subsequent analysis
interval.

Condition No.3.1 (Impacted End vs. Impacted Start):

Longest Path and Completion Dates are the same:

If the longest path and the overall

If the longest path activities and expected project
completion dates are the same, the
42 completion dates in both Programmes are the same.
predictive model generated for the analysis
period is reasonably accurate.
Conclusion: the inserted delay fragnet is accurate and it
progressed during the window as it was planned or
expected.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 39 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Condition No.3.2 (Impacted End vs. Impacted Start):

Completion Date is later (same Longest Path):

If the longest path activities in both Programmes are

the same but the project completion date of the
If the longest path is the same but the
impacted Programme updated as of end of the window
overall completion date of the progressed
is later than the project completion date of the impacted
version is later, the delay predicted for the
programme updated as of start of the window.
43 longest path was, in actuality, worse, or
additional delay events occurred on the
Conclusion: since the longest path activities in both
longest path.
Programmes are the same, it means that there this
additional delay affected the same activities during the
window, this additional delay could be due to delay in
the inserted fragnet itself or due to another cause of
delay occurred during the window (another event) that
should be investigated.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 40 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Condition No.3.3 (Impacted End vs. Impacted Start):

Completion Date is earlier (same Longest Path):

If the longest path activities in both Programmes are

the same but the project completion date of the
impacted Programme updated as of end of the window
If the longest path is the same but the
is earlier than the project completion date of the
overall completion date of the progressed
impacted Programme updated as of start of the window
44 version is earlier, there was acceleration
or some other delay mitigation on the
Conclusion: there was mitigation or acceleration done
delays on the longest path.
during the window that reduced the impact of the delay
event.

For example, this case could be a result of Contractor’s

working out of sequence, working additional hours,
employing addition workers/resources ….etc.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 41 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Condition No.3.4 (Impacted End vs. Impacted Start):

Longest Path and Completion Dates are the same (with
additional longest path):

If the longest path activities and project completion

If the longest path and the overall
dates in both Programmes are the same, but additional
completion dates are the same but an
longest path appeared in the impacted Programme
additional path is also the longest path,
45 updated as of end of the window.
some activity or delay event on that
additional longest path may be concurrent
Conclusion: another cause of delay (delay event)
with the claimed delay.
occurred during the window that caused shifting another
group of activities into the longest path; this case may
reflect “Concurrency”.
This “Concurrency” could be caused by the Employer or
by the Contractor.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 42 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Condition No.3.5 (Impacted End vs. Impacted Start):

Completion Dates are same (changed longest path):

If the project completion dates in both Programmes are

the same but there is another longest path activities
leading the delay in the impacted Programme updated as
of end of the window.
This case is a combination of case 3.3 and 3.4.

Conclusion: mitigation or acceleration occurred on the

former longest path that caused these activities to be out
If the longest path has changed but the of the updated longest path, and another cause of delay
overall completion date is the same, some (delay event) occurred during the window caused
activity or delay event on the new longest shifting another group of activities into the updated
46 path may be partially or completely longest path, accordingly must be investigated.
concurrent with the claimed delay on the
former longest path. Similar to Condition No.3.4, this case reflect partial or
complete “Concurrency”.

This case does not mean that the claimed/former delay

event has no impact on the project completion date but it
means that this delay is not the leading delay.

Subject to Contract Condition, if this new leading delay

event is caused by the Contractor, the Contractor can
still claim for the former delay event (if caused by the
Employer) even though it is not the leading delay;
taking in consideration its actual/partial impact on the
project completion date.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 43 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Condition No.3.6 (Impacted End vs. Impacted Start):

Completion Date is earlier (changed longest path):

If the project completion date of the impacted

Programme updated as of end of the window is earlier
than the project completion date of the impacted
Programme updated as of start of the window but there
is another longest path activities leading the delay.
If the longest path has changed but the
overall completion date is earlier, some
This case is a combination of case 3.3 and 3.4.
activity or delay event on that new longest
47
path may be partially or completely
Conclusion:
concurrent with the claimed delay on the
 Completion date is earlier: means mitigation
former longest path.
done during the window.
 Longest path has changed: means another
cause of delay (delay event) occurred during the
window and caused shifting another group of
activities into the updated longest path,
accordingly must be investigated.

Similar to Condition No.3.4, this case reflect partial or

complete “Concurrency”.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 44 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Condition No.3.7 (Impacted End vs. Impacted start):

Completion Date is later (changed longest path):

If the project completion date of the impacted

Programme updated as of end of the window is later
than the project completion date of the impacted
Programme updated as of start of the window but there
If the longest path has changed but the
is another longest path activities leading the delay.
overall completion date is later, some
activity or delay event on that new longest
48 Conclusion:
path may be partially or completely
 Longest path has changed and completion
concurrent with the claimed delay on the
date is later: means another cause of delay
former longest path.
(delay event) occurred during the window
caused shifting another group of activities into
the updated longest path, accordingly must be
investigated.

Similar to Condition No.3.4, this case reflect partial or

complete “Concurrency”.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 45 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 46 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Fourth Comparison (Updated End vs. Impacted

49
End):

Clarification:
 The term “non-progress revisions” refers to
Compare the longest path of the new activities.
progressed version of the analysis interval
with the longest path of the pre-insertion Compare the Impacted Programme updated as of end
baseline of the subsequent analysis of the window to the contemporaneous un-impacted
interval. Programme updated as of end of the same window (start
50 of next window).
Any differences are the result of non-
progress revisions implemented in the pre- Any differences should be identified and explained.
insertion baseline of the subsequent
analysis interval and should be identified These differences could be due to new activities (for
and explained. example, instruction of additional scope) added to the
programme updated as of start of the next window, or
due to new Programme revision at end of the window.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 47 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Based on the analysis results of this window determine

the Target project completion date for the next
window and repeat the above process for the subsequent
window.
51 Repeat the process for all analysis
intervals. As explained in the RP “Concurrency is evaluated
discretely for each analysis interval. That is, at the end
of each period, accounting of concurrency is closed,
and a new one opened for the next period.”

When identifying concurrent delay the analyst must

identify whether these are real delay (parent delay) or
pacing delay.

The order of precedence between the parent delay and

the pacing delay is important to prove this case, in
addition to prove that the pacing delay have been made
based on conscious decision.

As explained in the RP “Pacing occurs when one of the

For each suspected pacing delay event, independent delays is the result of a conscious,
identify the parent delay(s) and establish voluntary and contemporaneous decision to pace
52
the order of precedence between the progress against the other delay. The key is that it
parent delay and the pacing delay. results from the performing party’s reasoned decision to
keep pace with another activity, which is called the
parent delay. By pacing the work, the performing party
is exercising its option to reallocate its resources in a
more cost effective manner in response to the changes
in the schedule caused by the other parent (non-pacing)
delay and thereby mitigating or avoiding the cost
associated with the resource demands”. “The parent
delay creates additional relative total float available for
consumption by the paced activity.”

For each suspected pacing delay event, In order to prove that a delay is “Pacing Delay” the
evaluate whether enough resources could analyst should prove that the related activities were
53 have been realistically employed to purposely delayed and one of these proofs is the
perform the paced activity within its availability of resources such as materials on site or
original planned duration. manpower.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 48 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

I. Determination and Quantification of

54
Excusable and Compensable Delay

Identify and understand all contractual

language related to delay apportionment
and determine whether the contractual Review the Contract Conditions for clauses how to deal
language would override any with concurrent delay and Force majeure delay that
determination of excusability and could override the results of the analysis.
compensability based on findings resulting
from analyses performed under this RP. As explained in the RP “Concurrency is evaluated
discretely for each analysis interval. That is, at the
55
Note that this method or a variation of this end of each period, accounting of concurrency is
is often specified as the method of choice in closed, and a new one opened for the next period.”
many construction contracts, including
specific procedural steps for This is very important to establish the Target
implementation. Therefore, the following completion date by the end of each window before
procedure should be applied only in moving to the next window.
absence of contract language or other
agreements.

1. Excusable and Compensable Delay

56
(ECD)

Clarification:
 The term “comparing two additive-modeled
schedules” refers to the Impacted Programme
An additive-modeled schedule by itself
of Contractor-caused delay events, and to the
does not account for concurrent delays
Impacted Programme of owner-caused delay
and is therefore unsuitable for determining
events.
compensability. However, it is possible to
analyze for concurrency by comparing two
When applying the window analysis it is important to
additive-modeled schedules. The
take in consideration the impact of the selected
57 reliability of this quantification method is
window intervals on the results of the window
inversely proportional to the duration of
analysis, and the shorter the windows duration, the
the analysis periods. In other words, the
more reliable the analysis results.
shorter the period duration, the more
reliable the quantification. See Subsection
At the same time, if the events are continuous through
4.2.D.4.
more than one window (multiple-period events) it is
recommended to make an overall study/window that
combine these events from start till end.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 49 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

As explained in the RP “The analyst is recommended

to analyze multiple-period events in both separate
periods and combined periods to achieve the most
accurate results.”

To do this, for each analysis period: Clarifications:

 The term “with the data date closest in time
a. Create one additive model by inserting prior to the commencement of the impact
the subject owner-caused and force event” refers the selection of window intervals.
majeure-caused impact events into the
update with the data date closest in time  The term “additive model” refers to Impacted
prior to the commencement of the impact Programmes.
58
event.
Following selection of the window intervals, select the
Create a separate additive model by contemporaneous un-impacted programme updated as
inserting the contractor-caused impact of start of the window and create the Impacted
events into the same update chosen for the Programme for the owner-caused delay events, and the
owner-impact model. Impacted Programme for the contractor-caused delay
events separately.

Clarifications:
 The terms “the baseline completion date”
refers to the target project completion date as
per the Programme updated as of start of the
window.

Compare the two impacted Programmes (Owner-

b. Compare the two resulting schedules.
caused and Contractor-caused).
To the extent that the net delay-effect
59 beyond the baseline completion date
Even though the concurrent delay events occurred
overlaps there is concurrency.
during the window, but measuring the concurrency
will be based on the overlapped delayed period of the
Project completion dates.

Measuring the delay will be against the target

completion date for the un-impacted programme
updated as of start of the window and it is the original
project completion date when analyzing the first
window.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 50 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

If the project completion date in both impacted

programmes are later than the target project completion
date of the un-impacted Programme (updated as of start
of the window) there is concurrency occurred during
the window.

c. The extent to which the completion date Clarifications:

of the additive model with the owner-  The term “additive model” refers to the
impact is later than that of the other impacted programme.
additive model with the contractor-  The term “actual completion date” refers to
60 impact, may be the quantity of ECD, but the project actual completion date (TOC date).
only to the extent that the impacted
completion date does not exceed the actual When counting Compensable delay the extended
completion date. duration should not exceed the project actual
completion date (TOC date).

If the “Owner caused” delay is more than the delay

“caused by the Contractor”, then the difference will
be considered Excusable and Compensable Delay
(ECD) to the Contractor, because the Owner is solely
61 responsible for this part of the delay. The other part of
the delay (the overlapped portion) will be considered
concurrent, accordingly it is Excusable and Non-
Compensable delay (END) because both parties have
caused this part of the delay.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 51 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 52 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

2. Non-Excusable and Non-Compensable

62
Delay (NND)

An additive-modeled schedule by itself

does not account for concurrent delays and
is therefore unsuitable for determining
Subject to contract conditions, in NND cases, the
compensability. However, it is possible to
Contractor has no right for extension of time nor
analyze for concurrency by comparing two
prolongation cost and will be subject to “Delay
63 additive-modeled schedules. The
Damages” for this portion of the delay. For the END
reliability of this quantification method is
portions of the delay the Contractor has the right for
inversely proportional to the duration of the
extension of time only.
analysis periods. In other words, the shorter
the period duration, the more reliable the
quantification. See Subsection 4.2.D.4.

To do this, for each analysis period:

a. Create one additive model by inserting

Create the Impacted Programme for the contractor-
the subject contractor-caused impact
64 caused delay events.
events into the update with the data date
closest in time prior to the commencement
of the impact event.

b. Create a separate additive model by

inserting the owner-caused and force
majeure-caused impact events into the Create the Impacted Programme for the owner-caused
65
same update chosen for the owner-impact delay events.
model.

c. Compare the two resulting schedules.

Compare the two impacted Programmes. Measuring the
To the extent that the net delay-effect
delay will be against the original project completion
66 beyond the baseline completion date
date or the target completion date for the un-impacted
overlaps there is concurrency.
programme updated as of start of the window.

d. The extent to which the completion date If the Contractor caused delay more than the delay
of the additive model with the contractor- caused by the Owner then the difference will be
impact is later than that of the other considered Non-Excusable and Non-Compensable
additive model with the owner-impact, Delay (NND) to the Contractor, because the Contractor
67
may be the quantity of NND, but only to is solely responsible for this portion of the delay.
the extent that the impacted completion However, this delay should not exceed the project actual
date does not exceed the actual completion completion date (TOC date).
date.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 53 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

The other part of the delay (the overlapped portion) will

be considered Excusable and Non-Compensable delay
(END) because both parties have caused this part of the
delay, accordingly the Contractor has the right to claim
for extension of time for this part.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 54 of 57

 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

3. Excusable and Non-Compensable

68
Delay (END)

a. Insert the owner-caused and force

Create the Impacted Programme for the Owner-caused
majeure-caused impact events into the
delay events.
69 update with the data date closest in time
Create the Impacted Programme for the contractor-
prior to the commencement of the impact
caused delay events.
event.

b. The difference between the completion

The portion of the delay which is concurrently caused by
of the longest path prior to the insertion
70 the Owner and the Contractor is Excusable and Non-
and the completion of the longest path
Compensable.
after the insertion is the END.

Clarifications:
 The term “post-insertion schedule” refers to the
Impacted Programme.
c. The post-insertion schedule can be  The term “inserting actual progress data” refers
further analyzed by inserting actual to the updated impacted Programme as of end of
progress data. If the resulting completion the window.
71 date is shorter than that indicated in the
post-insertion schedule prior to actual If the project completion date as per the updated
progressing, it may be proper to reduce impacted Programme as of end of the window is earlier
the amount of END accordingly. that the project completion date as per the impacted
Programme updated as of start of window, the analyst
may consider the delay as per progressed impacted
programme.

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 55 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

The following illustrations summarize all cases (ECD, END, NND)

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 56 of 57

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/basemm/

The END

Prepared by Basem M. Mahmood © Page 57 of 57