This article explores the vital role that accurate and consistent programme updates play in the context of preparing extension of time (EOT) claims and discusses common issues that arise and proposes some practical solutions to help ensure the production of effective delay analysis.
Author: Rupesh Jedhe, Senior Consultant, Dubai, UAE
Introduction
Within EOT claims, programme updates are the foundation of the delay analysis. The updates record the real-time progress of a project, account for any unforeseen changes and serve as the basis on which to evaluate delay upon the critical path of a project.
Accurate and logical updates, as emphasised by the Society of Construction Law (SCL) Delay and Disruption Protocol 2nd Edition are essential for any credible delay analysis. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International Recommended Practices 29R-03 and 53R-06, further highlight the importance of maintaining an up-to-date programme to ensure credible delay analysis so that realistic EOT claims can be generated. Incorrect programme updates can undermine delay analysis leading to flawed assessments, claims and thereafter, potential disputes if they are not addressed and corrected carefully.
The importance of programme updates in delay analysis
Properly maintained programme updates are essential when conducting delay analysis. Both the SCL Protocol and the AACE Recommended Practices stress that accurate updates allow stakeholders to:
- Capture the actual progress: Compare actual progress against the as-planned programme accurately identifying any deviation. The SCL Protocol in particular, emphasises that as-built records are critical to performing delay analysis.[1]
- Assess impacts: Reflect the impacts of delay events such as, variations or unforeseen events upon the critical path and project completion. This aligns with AACE 29R-03, which recommends regular updates to assess the evolving critical path.[2]
- Enhance collaboration: Facilitate informed decision-making and transparency among stakeholders to avoid disputes.
Common issues in programme updates and potential implications
1. Incorrect progress data: Actual start/finish dates and progress percentages sometimes fail to reflect site conditions.
- Implication: Inconsistent or incorrect data distorts critical path calculations, resulting in unreliable delay attribution and flawed delay analysis.
Solution: AACE 53R-06 sets out the importance of rigorous validation protocols, thus ensuring accuracy in actual dates and completion percentages while updating programmes.[3] The SCL Protocol recommends cross-referencing updates with contemporaneous project records such as daily reports, inspection requests, procurement logs and transmittal logs to enhance accuracy and reliability.[4]
2. Activity Status Fluctuations: Frequent changes, such as switching between "in progress" and "not started”.
- Implication: Reduces programme reliability and complicates delay attribution and mitigation efforts.
- Solution: Establish a comprehensive programme update review system and an automated process of identifying changes from programme export in spreadsheets, as recommended in AACE 53R-06, to be aware of changes and to prevent inconsistent status updates.[5]
3. Arbitrary changes to accepted programme: Undocumented modifications to logic, activities, durations, calendars and activity type.
- Implication: Undermines the programme's reliability, compromises the integrity of the critical path and obscures causation, which hinders the outcome of an otherwise credible EOT claim.
- Solution: The SCL Protocol stresses the importance of documenting all updates with a clear narrative of the changes made to enhance accountability and traceability.[6] AACE 53R-06 further supports this by recommending a systematic approach to maintaining a change log for programme updates.[7]
4. Unrealistic forecasting: Updates fail to reflect project realities.
- Implication: Produces unrealistic forecasts, reducing stakeholder trust and may undermine any delay assessment and mitigation efforts.
- Solution: Audit programme updates' logic rigorously to ensure realistic sequences and durations. The SCL Protocol advocates the correction of unreasonable logic and durations. Ensure that programme updates remain dynamic and reflect evolving project realities to maintain accurate critical paths and realistic forecasts.[8]
5. Use of outdated working programmes: Often, programme revisions are accepted as part of ongoing project updates yet older programme versions are sometimes updated instead of the latest accepted working programmes.
- Implication: May breach contract requirements for maintaining and submitting accurate and accepted programme updates, creates data gaps and risks delay analysis being based on a non compliant baseline, thereby weakening EOT claims.
- Solution: The SCL Protocol recommends maintaining updates to the latest accepted programme in line with contractual provisions, alongside prior versions as required to reflect actual progress and realistic forecasts.[9]
6. Loss of historical integrity: Overwriting prior updates' progress data.
- Implication: Prevents tracing the evolution of delays and therefore weakening claims.
- Solution: The SCL Protocol emphasises maintaining version-controlled updates to preserve historical integrity.[10] AACE 53R-06 further reinforces this by recommending a structured review process to avoid data overwrites.[11]
Conclusion
Consistent and accurate programme updates are critical to enable robust delay analysis to be undertaken and for successful outcomes of EOT claim submissions.
Addressing these common issues with rigorous validation, logic consistency and comprehensive documentation enhances reliability and robustness of any delay analysis underpinning an EOT claim. By applying best practices and leveraging standards such as the SCL Protocol 2nd Edition and AACE Recommended Practices, construction professionals can help lessen the occurrence of disputes but if disputes occur, can assist in resolving them.
This article was originally written for issue 29 of the Diales Digest. You can view the publication here: https://www.diales.com/diales-digest-issue-29
1. SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd Edition (February 2017), Core Principle 1: Programme and Records
2. AACE Recommended Practice No. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis (2011), Section 2.3: Schedule Updates: Validation, Rectification, and Reconstruction (SVP2.3)
3. AACE Recommended Practice No. 53R-06: Schedule Update Review – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (August 2008). Sections: Schedule Update Review
4. SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd Edition (February 2017), Appendix B- Record types and examples, Section 1.4(e)
5. AACE Recommended Practice No. 53R-06: Schedule Update Review – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (August 2008). Sections: Schedule Update Review
6. SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd Edition (February 2017), Core Principle 1: Programme and Records, Requirements for updating and saving the Accepted Programme/Updated Programme
7. AACE Recommended Practice No. 53R-06: Schedule Update Review – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (August 2008). Section: Schedule Update Submittal, Schedule Narrative
8. SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd Edition (February 2017), Core Principle 4: Do not ‘wait and see’ regarding impact of delay events (contemporaneous analysis)
9. SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd Edition (February 2017), Core Principle 1: Programme and Records, Requirements for updating and saving the Accepted Programme/Updated Programme
10. SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd Edition (February 2017), Core Principle 1: Programme and Records, Requirements for updating and saving the Accepted Programme/Updated Programme
11. AACE Recommended Practice No. 53R-06: Schedule Update Review – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (August 2008). Sections: Schedule Update Review