![]() MIP 3.3 is a backward-looking tool, and the term dynamic logic is used to refer to the progress update programmes at intervals of time to establish the contemporaneous longest path based on the actual progress of the works. Whereas MIP 3.3 is an observational dynamic logic method carried out on a retrospective basis, where the actual progress of the works is measured against the effects of the events (if any). ![]() ![]() Though termed retrospective, the MIP 3.7 is a forward-looking tool that provides the prospective impact of a delay event or event(s) at any point in the past. MIP 3.7 is an additive modelled method wherein the likely impact of any delay event on the final completion date or any interim control milestone is established by inserting the delay events into the programme closest to the event trigger date. The analysis is based on dynamic logic wherein the effect of the event modelled to contemporaneous data is analysed (MIP 3.7, MIP 3.3).The progress updates represent a multi-base scenario as opposed to a single phase to imply modelling the event into the baseline (MIP 3.7) and.The analysis includes reliance on programme progress updates as-is at different points in time, hence the analysis is based on contemporaneous data (MIP 3.3).The analysis involves the addition of delay fragnets into the programmes to model the event, hence this is an additive modelled form of analysis (MIP 3.7).The two MIPs are relevant to TSA for the following reasons: The TSA combines MIP 3.3 (Observational / Dynamic / Contemporaneous As-Is) and MIP 3.7 (Modeled / Additive / Multiple Base) creating a hybrid method of delay analysis. Figure 1 – Retrospective methods under AACEI 29R-03 (Observational) Figure 2 – Retrospective methods under AACEI 29R-03 (Modelled) ![]() The retrospective delay analysis methods provided within the AACEI 29R-03 are separated into observational and modelled methods as shown in Figures 1 and 2. Primarily, TSA is a retrospective method that establishes critical delay based on actual progress and, thereafter, the assignment of responsibility for critical delays based on the provisions in the contract (an effect and cause approach). Therefore, a departure from the recommended protocols should not be automatically treated as an error or a deficiency as long as such a departure is based on a conscious and sound application of schedule analysis principles.” “ This Recommended Practice is not intended to establish a standard of practice, nor is it intended to be a prescriptive document applied without exception. However, as stated in the introduction section within AACEI 29R-03, it is not prescriptive and must be considered in conjunction with the provisions of the contract: The purpose of any time extension claim is to relieve the contractor from paying liquidated damages for critical delays that have occurred, for which it is excused responsibility under the contract.ĪACE International Recommended Practice ‘29R-03’ provides useful guidance on delay analysis. It is believed that the TSA has an advantage over other retrospective methods of delay analysis, such as, as-planned vs as-built in windows, as it provides a contemporaneous view more accurately modeling the impact of an event. Using the two methods together allows the analyst to model the likely impact of any event within a chosen period or window and thereafter, measure the actual impact based on the progress recorded during that period or window. The TSA takes advantage of both, combining a forward-looking approach (prospective) and backward-looking approach (retrospective). The TSA combines two separate method implementation protocols (‘MIP’) that are described in AACE 29R-03 in a single delay analysis.ĭelay analysis methods are generally classified into two types: prospective or retrospective. This article explores a hybrid form of delay analysis, namely the time slice window analysis (‘TSA’), to arrive at an assessment of excusable delay (‘ED’) and excusable compensable delay (‘ECD’). - Regulatory Investigations & White-Collar Crime.- Forensic Accounting & Corporate Fraud.Forensic Engineering, Architectural & Technical.Dispute Forum and International Arbitration.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |