Delay Analysis
and Concurrent
Delay
‫واﻟﺗﺄﺧﯾر‬ ‫اﻟﺗﺄﺧﯾر‬ ‫ﺗﺣﻠﯾل‬ ‫طرق‬
‫اﻟﻣﺗزاﻣن‬

2
Mohamed Maged
Project Management Consultant
LLM, MBA, PMP, CCP, P3O
• Master in Construction Law – Salford University, Manchester, UK
• Master of Business Administration – UoPeople, US
• B.Sc. Civil Engineering – Ain Shams University, Egypt
• Consultant – Saudi Council of Engineers, Saudi Arabia
• CCP, Certified Cost Professional credential – AACE International, US
• PMP, Project Management Professional credential – PMI, US
• P3O, Portfolio, Programme and Projects Offices credential – AXELOS, UK
• FIDIC Contracts Consultant, AIA (Brussels) Fellow
• Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb, UK): Commercial Dispute Resolution
• Author of 50 Planning fundamentals & Fundamentals of Construction Contracts
• Experience more than 20 years in mega-projects (Buildings, Infrastructure & Roads)
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

MY RELATED PUBLICATIONS
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

CONTENT
1. Reasons and types of delay
2. Delay analysis approaches
3. Forensic scheduling
4. Concurrent delay
5. Contractual principles
6. Concurrency approaches
7. Extension of time claims
8. Recommendations
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

1- Reasons & Types of Delay
Neutral Event
In-Excusable (CRE)
Excusable (EOT)
ERE Concurrent
Delay
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
Pacing
Compensable Non-Compensable

2- Delay Analysis Approaches
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

2.1- Delay Analysis Approaches - AACE
Prospective Retrospective
Insert a modeled
fragnet into the
schedule, then check
logic and duration,
and finally recalculate
the CPM to measure
the time impact.
The appropriate
update schedule is the
most recently
reviewed schedule
update before the
event (unimpacted
schedule).
1. Classification and
Principles
2. Source Validation
3. Method
Implementation
4. Analysis Evaluation
5. CHOOSING A
METHOD
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Retrospective Delay Analysis
Forensic Schedule Analysis:
A technical field of studying and investigating the schedule
calculation using different methods (usually requires many
subjective decisions by professionals) to measure and quantify
delay focusing on causation to resolve EOT disputes.
Project Planning and
Scheduling
Forensic Schedule
Analysis
Legal Proceeding
and Aspects
No forensic schedule analysis method is exact. The level of accuracy of the answers
produced by each method is a function of the quality of the data used therein, the accuracy
of the assumptions, and the subjective judgments made by the forensic schedule analyst.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

1. General Principles
The critical path and float values of uncompleted work activities in CPM
schedules change over time.
2. SVP: Baseline, As-built, Updates & Delay Events
A. General
Considerations
B.
Investigation
C.
Enhancement
D. Special
Procedures
A&B Description &
Common names
C&D
SVP
E Min.
MIP
F
Enhance
ment
G,H,I,J
Identification &
Quantification
K Specific
Procedures
L
Cons
M
Caveats
3. MIP
4. Eval. 1. Excusability &
Compensability
2. Concurrency
Quantification
3. Critical Path and
Float
4. Mitigation &
Acceleration
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
Forensic Schedule Analysis

1. Classification
Observational: Examining the schedule itself without changes.
Static: Same network - Dynamic: updates with variations.
As-Is: just comparison - Split: adding logic check - Modified: create
update if not available.
Modeled: Representing delay events in schedule.
Additive: add to a base - Subtractive: from as-built.
Single/Multi base: No. of CPM networks used.
Stepped: simulating delays sequentially from start to end or vise versa.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
Source Data Validation Needed
for Various Methods

Measurement of Delay: form the contract completion date to the actual completion date
(retrospective), or form the current contract completion date to the projected completion date
(prospective). It’s important to agree on the benchmark programme that will be used (BIM can help) to
carry out the reviews to resolve questions of culpability for delay or to estimate the likely delay period.
2.2- Methods of Delay Analysis - RICS
Methods of delay analysis:
-Simple and relatively simple
1. Overview of the facts: It deals with relatively straight forward claims
when the cause and delay are apparent.
2. Comparing actual and planned progress: It’s comparing the activities
timing using the contemporaneous documents to review the reasons of
discrepancies/ delay.
-Detailed, forensic and more reliable
3. Critical path analysis (CPA): Based on the logic-link using either planned
(prospect. or retrosp.) or as-built programme.
4. Focused methods of analysis: Over shorter periods using an updated
programme (prospective: TIA), or particular periods with as-built data
(Retrospective: window or time slice).
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

2.3- SCL Delay and
Disruption Protocol
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Level of detail / Acceptance / Update
1. Programme and Records
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

The parties should attempt so far as possible to deal with the time impact of
Employer Risk Events as the work proceeds (both in terms of EOT and
compensation). Applications for an EOT should be made and dealt with as close in
time as possible to the delay event that gives rise to the application. A 'wait and see'
approach to assessing EOT is discouraged.
Where the Contractor has complied with its contractual obligations regarding delay
events and EOT applications, the Contractor should not be prejudiced in any dispute
with the Employer as a result of the CA failing to assess EOT applications.
EOT entitlement should be assessed by the CA within a reasonable time (4.1: not
later than one month) after submission of an EOT application by the Contractor.
The Contractor potentially will be entitled to an EOT only for those events or causes
of delay in respect of which the Employer has assumed risk and responsibility
(called in the Protocol Employer Risk Events) that impact the critical path.
Prompt Action – Prospective Analysis
4. Do not 'wait and see' regarding impact of delay
events (contemporaneous analysis)
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Retrospective Analysis
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
11. Analysis time-distant from the delay event

@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

OTHER TECHNIQUES
11.4e Delay impact is determined in one of two different ways. A prospective delay analysis identifies the likely
impact of historical progress or delay events on a completion date. The conclusions of a prospective delay
analysis may not match the as-built programme because the Contractor's actual performance may well have
been influenced by the effects of attempted acceleration, re-sequencing or redeployment of resources in
order to try to avoid liability for liquidated damages or due to other Employer and Contractor Risk Events. A
retrospective delay analysis identifies the actual impact of the delay events on the identified actual or as-built
critical path.
11. 7 Other methods, which may be reasonably deployed in particular circumstances having considered the
criteria in paragraph 11.3 above, include: project wide retrospective as-planned versus as-built analysis (i.e.
not in windows), time chainage analysis, line of balance analysis, resource curve analysis, and earned value
analysis.
11.8 In order to avoid or at least minimise disputes over methodology, it is recommended that the parties
try to agree an appropriate method of delay analysis before each embarks upon significant work on or after the
event delay analysis.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

EEA Lecture (6-Dec-21): Delay Quantification and Forecasting
1 Total Float = Update Finish date – Baseline Finish date (Delay =-ve TF)
3 SV = EV – PV, EV = Ʃ(Performance%*BC), PV = Ʃ(Scheduled%*BC)
-ve SV: Delay = SV / Daily planned budget (BAC/Duration)
4 Earned Schedule: SPI = PT/AT (SPI < 1 means behind schedule: Delay)
SV: Delay = AT – PT, PT = The planned (earned) duration of the EV
6 Trend analysis (Forecasting): Extending the curve of EV
Delay = Expected Finish date – Baseline Finish date
2
LOB (Repetitive activities): Resource-based schedules
Apply the resource limits (Leveling) and logic productivity on the remaining work
Var.
now
VAC
SV
Remaining
7 EVM Forecasting: 3 approaches
1- Maintain the variance untill end.
2- Magnify the variance.
3- Recalculation for the remaining work to consider all factors.
SV
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
5 Earned Manhours: Using the similar approaches to SV & ES.

WHICH TECHNIQUE TO USE?
11.3 The Choice of technique depends on:
(a) the relevant conditions of contract;
(b) the nature of the causative events;
( c) the nature of the project;
( d) to ensure a proportionate approach, the value of the project or dispute;
( e) the time available;
(f) the nature, extent and quality of the records available;
(g) the nature, extent and quality of the programme information available;
and
(h) the form in which the assessment is being made.
11.2 Irrespective of which method of delay analysis is deployed, this is particularly relevant where there is
a significant risk that the remaining duration projections, logic links, calendars and constraints within the
baseline programme (preferably the Accepted/Updated Programme) might produce anomalous results.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Common Sense
4.14 Although the Updated Programme should be the primary tool for guiding
the CA in its determination of an EOT, it should be used in conjunction with the
contemporary evidence to ensure that any resulting EOT is both reasonable and
consistent with the factual circumstances.
It will also be necessary for the parties to apply common sense and
experience to the process to ensure that all relevant factors are taken into
account, and that any anomalous results generated by the delay analysis are
properly managed. Overarching these considerations, any resulting EOT must
be consistent with the contractual requirements regarding entitlement.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

2.4- ASCE – Schedule Delay Analysis
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

2.5- Other Classifications
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Theoretical Based Methods
Global Impact method
Considers an increase in work scope as directly
proportional to time and ignores timing, concurrency
and own delays.
As-planned impacted method
Impacts delays upon the original baseline and does
not consider mistakes in the baseline or events at the
time of the delay.
As-built “but for”
Inconsistent with the facts and relies upon the as built
programme demonstrating that all delay is excusable.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
Actual Based Methods
As-planned -v- as built method
Simple and visible in a single window but not suitable for
complex projects with competing and concurrent delay.
Windows/snapshot or update method
The use of electronic progress reports to analyse
incrementally the changes to the as planned programme with as
built assistance.
Impact/Update – Time-slices
Driven by a delay schedule and subject to time slices within
which the anticipated and actual progress is analysed. Strong
in addressing mitigation and concurrent delays.
Different Bases

‫اﻟﺗﺄﺧﯾر‬ ‫وﺗﺣﻠﯾل‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻣدﯾد‬ ‫ﻣطﺎﻟﺑﺎت‬ ‫ﻣوﺿوع‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﻛﻠﻣت‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻲ‬ ‫اﻷﺧرى‬ ‫اﻟﻛﺗب‬ ‫ﻣن‬ ‫ﺑﻌض‬
:
More References
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

3- Forensic Use of Analysis – AACE 29R-03
- CHOOSING
A METHOD
Legal considerations (3): Contractual requirements, ADR Forum & Legal requirements.
Technical considerations (3): Purpose, Data availability and reliability & Complexity of the dispute.
Practical considerations (5): Size of the dispute, Budget for analysis, Time allowed, Analyst
experience & Past history in the project).
If the purpose of the forensic schedule analysis is to
demonstrate only excusable, non-compensable delay,
numerous methods are available since the forensic schedule
analyst will probably not need to deal with concurrent delay.
If the purpose is to demonstrate compensable delay, other
methods may be more appropriate such as one of the
observational dynamic or modeled methods.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

4- Concurrent Delay
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Concurrent Delay Definition
Definitions
The delay events normally happen at different timings, during different periods, affecting different paths of activities and with different
effects. Therefore, it is challenging to specify what parameters to be adopted to define the concurrency. In this regard, AACE
mentioned numerous definitions as follows:
(1) SCL Protocol: The term “concurrent delay” is often used to describe the situation where two or more delay events arise at different
times, but the effects of them are felt (in whole or in part) at the same time. To avoid confusion, this is more correctly termed the
“concurrent effect” of sequential delay events.
(2) Concurrent delay arises when two or more events cause delays that take place or overlap during the same period, either of which
occurring alone would have affected the ultimate completion date.
(3) Concurrent delay occurs when there are two or more independent causes of delay during the same time where most courts do not
require that the period of concurrent delay precisely match. The period of “concurrency” of the delays can be related to circumstances,
even though the circumstances may not have occurred during exactly the same time.
AACE differentiated between literal concurrency (true concurrency) and functional concurrency (concurrent effect) considering that
the functional theory recognizes the real-world limitations of exact measuring of delays and inaccuracy of programmes.
Briefly, concurrent delay takes place when two independent events occur, one is an employer risk event and the other is a
contractor risk event, and both events have a concurrent effect of delaying the project beyond the contractual completion date.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
Delay in Design
ERE #1
EOT??
Contract
Completion Date
Additional Work
ERE #2
Definition Variables
• Timing of the events
• Independency
• Duration of delay (Effectiveness)
• The effect (Delayed paths)
Lack of Resources
CRE #1
Concurrency???

Cases of Concurrent Delay
Concurrent Delay
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
Compensable
(ERE exceeds CRE)
Non-Compensable
(CRE exceeds ERE)
ERE after Completion
(Net Method)
Excusable Delay (ERE)
In-Excusable Delay (CRE)
Excusable Non Compensable Delay
In-Excusable Delay
concurrent with
shorter Excusable
Delay yields a net
Excusable Non
Compensable
Delay
ONLY Time
Extension is
Granted
Should be
recovered
Excusable Delay (ERE)
In-Excusable Delay (CRE)
Excusable Non Compensable
In-Excusable Delay
concurrent with
longer Excusable
Delay yields an
Excusable Delay and
Partial Compensation
- Time Extension is
Granted with
prolongation cost
Excusable
Compensable

5- Legal Principles
1. Establishing Causation
2. Prevention Principle
3. A Party Shall Not Benefit of Its Own Wrong
4. Contributory Negligence
5. Contractual Mechanism for Extension of Time
6. Contra Proferentem Doctrine
7. The "Dot On" Principle
8. Other Legislations - CMS
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Causation
Causation is a term used in tort and contract. It is a topic that plays a key role when dealing with commercial
disputes.
Sometimes, one delay event may cause other delay events. In this case, these events are dependent, not concurrent.
It is a primary condition to have a concurrent delay which is that the delay events are independent. This is one of the
first checks to be done in analyzing the causation of the concurrent delay.
Overall, causation is a troublesome issue, particularly when there is a concurrent delay according to Galoo
Ltd v Bright Grahame Murray (1994, Court of Appeal).
Legal Causation
One type of causation is legal causation. It analyzes the breached duty. In such cases, contract provisions define the
events that lead to the contractor’s entitlement to an extension of time.
Factual Causation
Factual causation checks the (proximate cause). The first step in establishing causation, after identification of
possible events, is to eliminate irrelevant causes with consideration of common sense. This is the purpose of the
“but for” test.
Mainly, the courts are concerned with assigning responsibility for the damage by identifying the effective cause of
them with consideration of common sense, not to explore all possible causes of a particular incident according to
Orient-Express Hotels (2010).
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Prevention
The emergent of the prevention principle goes back to the 1838 case of Holme v Guppy (building contract)
where the employer was not able to give possession of the site, so this prevented the commencement of the
work in the due time. The Court of Exchequer (appellate court) established what Baron Parke called “clear
authorities” stating that: “if the party be prevented, by the refusal of the other contracting party, from
completing the contract within the time-limited, he is not liable in law for the default … The plaintiffs were
therefore left at large”.
However,acts of prevention by an employer did not set time at large if the contract provided for extension of
time in respect of those events (Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd, 2007).
In North Midland Building (2018), Judge Fraser J decided that the prevention principle is not an overriding
rule of public or legal policy. This means that the parties can agree to deal with the concurrent delay in any
other particular way, and the express terms prevail.
Twivy, in a SCL meeting in 2019, criticized the displacement of the prevention principle by express terms
relying on that it is an example of a very old principle of English law that a man shall not get benefits of his
own fault. Lord Finlay LC in New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Societe des Ateliers et Chantiers de France
(House of Lords, 1919) ascertained that: “this is regularly true in all cases: If that be a principle of law, that a
party shall not take advantage of its own wrong.”
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

6- Legal approaches
Prospective vs Retrospective Delay Analysis
Overall, prospective analysis is helpful for the parties to move with lights on about the potential effect of the delay and the
extension of time entitlement. On contrary, it can never be accurate due to blindness about what will be the actual effects
and damages. Therefore, logic retrospective analysis is then required to move the assessment from foresight to hindsight.
All-or-Nothing Approaches. There are three approaches that lead to an all-or-nothing solution as follows:
- Dominant cause approach (e.g., pacing situation). - First-in line approach (sequential delay).
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
The first-in line approach assigns responsibility of the delay to the first event of occurrence especially if the later event
did not cause additional delay. The delay caused by employer considered as sequential, not an example of concurrent delay
because the project was already delayed by contractor and the employer events did not in fact cause any additional delay
to completion (Royal Brompton Hospital, 2000 & Saga Cruises BDF, 2016). This approach of analysis does not reflect the
effect of the culpable delay because it does not segregate the effect of each delay event. So, this may lead to unfairness.
“Dominant” word can have several meanings such as operative, ruling, prevailing and most influential. However, this is
not always correct to assign liability based on a dominant cause because it deprives the contractor of its right.
Independent Broadcasting Authority v EMI Electronics Ltd (1980)

Time-Related Approaches
The major legal analysis approaches that focus on deciding the entitlement of extension of time are:
- Apportionment approach. - Malmaison approach. - Other cases (DeBeers & Walter Lilly).
Money-Related Approaches
Regarding the money-related approaches, the apportionment approach is similar to the burden of proof approach (Walter
Lilly: Global claim & Arcadis UK Ltd v May and Baker, 2013) where both of them examine the parties’ responsibility
(causation)/ contribution to the damages but by using different methodologies.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
Malmaison approach, 1999 (English School as per Walter Lilly, 2012): “if there are two concurrent causes of delay, one
of which is relevant, and the other is not, then the contractor is entitled to an extension of time for the (full) period of delay
caused by the relevant event notwithstanding the concurrent effect of the other event.”
The apportionment approach (Scottish School: City Inn Case, 2007) examines contribution of the parties which is
similar in nature to contributory negligence or contribution among the joint wrongdoers.
Brodie McAdam asserted that this was wrong because it could make a contractor charged with liquidated damages for a
period that acts of prevention by employer were operative during it.
De Beers UK Ltd v Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd (2010): "The general rule in construction and engineering cases is
that where there is a concurrent delay to completion, the contractor is entitled to an extension of time, but he cannot
recover in respect of the loss caused by the delay." This applies “time but no money” solution so the contractor gets an
EOT, but neither contractor nor employer gets compensation.

Contractual Mechanisms
The Standard Forms
Many contract draftsmen prefer to leave the problem of concurrent delay unaddressed. This results in little guidance for
any contract administrator in determining an assessment under the contract. Concurrent delay is not obviously handled
in the standard forms of construction contract used in the UK such as JCT and NEC.
It makes it confusing when a concurrent delay takes place because no standard approach is adopted, and different rules
and procedures may apply under different jurisdictions.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
Therefore, due to the absence of any express provisions
addressing concurrent delay, the parties typically find
themselves applying the generic terms of the extension of time
and using those terms to make their arguments. Unless the
parties are able to reach an agreement, a dispute may be
referred to adjudication, arbitration, or the courts where a series
of common law principles will emerge and evolve.

Extending Project Duration
The “Dot On” Principle
The Net Method vs The Gross Method
The “dot on” principle adds the duration of the extension of time to the current completion date, not to the date of
the event (the gross method). Therefore, each time the contractor gets an extension of time, it should be added
contiguously according to Balfour Beatty (1993) and Carillion Construction (2017).
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
Excusable Delay (ERE)
ERE #1
EOT #1
Contract
Completion
Date
Excusable Delay (ERE)
ERE #2
EOT #2

Special Case: ERE after the contract completion date
Excusable Delay (ERE)
ERE
In-Excusable Delay (CRE)
Contractor should
not be exonerated
Excusable Delay (ERE)
Extension of Time In-Excusable Delay
(LDs)
Contract
Completion
Date
ASCE DAS 4.6:
This type of delay is referred to as
“offsetting delay,” recognizing that an
owner-caused delay may result in
recognizing a noncompensable time
extension to offset all or a portion of
any potential liquidated damages.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

10.13 An Employer should be aware that if it instructs a variation after the contract
completion date where the failure to complete by the contract completion date has been
caused by Contractor Delay, the Employer may lose its entitlement to liquidated damages if the
Contractor then accelerates to recover the Contractor Delay to Completion at its own cost and
that results in the variation (an Employer Risk Event) becoming the effective cause of Delay to
Completion.
10.14 Employer Delay to Completion does not exonerate the Contractor for all its delays prior to
that Employer Delay to Completion occurring. The effect of the Employer Delay should be
assessed and any EOT determined due should simply be added to the contract completion date.
ERE after the contract completion date (SCL)
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Concurrency UK Cases of Law
Holme
v
Guppy
1838:
Prevention
Principle
and
Authorities'
Establishment
(Time
at
Large)
Leyland
Shipping
v
Norwich
Insurance
1918:
Dominant
Cause
and
But-for
test
(Proximate
Cause)
Henry
Boot
Construction
v
Malmaison
Hotel
1999:
Malmaison
Approach
Royal
Brompton
Hospital
v
Hammond
&
Others
2000:
First-in
line
Approach
Multiplex
Constructions
v
Honeywell
Control
Systems
2007:
Propositions
&
Authorities
Review
City
Inn
v
Shepherd
Construction
2010:
Apportionment
Approach
(Scottish
School)
Walter
Lilly
v
Mackay
2012:
English
school
provides
a
full
extension
of
time
for
the
concurrent
delay
North
Midland
Building
v
Cyden
Homes
2018:
Prevention
principle
is
not
an
overriding
rule
These cases are the major cases of law used in the assessment of concurrent delay with mentioning
the analysis approach adopted by each case:

Concurrent Delay – CMS (Other Jurisdictions)
- US: “No harm, no foul” rule applies and neither party may
benefit monetarily from the delay.
- Australia: The current Australian authorities favour the “first
in time” approach considering the sequential delays.
- Scotland: City Inn found that it must firstly be considered
whether there was a “dominant” cause of delay.
- Germany: Concept of concurrent causality as parallel but
independent contributions to causation.
- Austria: Austrian courts use the so-called “theory of
spheres”, through which it can be determined whether any
particular cause of a delay falls into the employer’s or the
contractors’ sphere of responsibility.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Technical Perspectives
Critical Path Analysis vs Legal Analysis Approaches
Applying this explanation to the legal analysis approaches can be against the first-in line approach because the second
delay affects the programme paths with the same amount of delay as the first event plus an additional delay if any.
Also, as the delays overlap, the duration cannot be distributed between the reasons of delay according to the apportionment
approach. This endorses analyzing each delay event separately without considering a dominant cause of delay.
Therefore, it is only the Malmaison approach (extension of time for the (full) period of delay caused by the relevant
event ) that complies with the technical point of view of the critical path analysis.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
New Critical Path
CRE
Original Critical Path
Contract
Completion
Date
ERE Effect
ERE
EOT??
New Critical Path
ERE
Original Critical Path
Contract
Completion
Date
CRE Effect
CRE
EOT??

Summary of the Approaches
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner
Dominant Cause
Approach
First-in Line
Approach
Apportionment
Approach
Time-but-no-money
Approach
Malmaison &
Burden of Proof
Approach
In conclusion, Malmaison and the burden of proof approaches do not allow a full solution individually in all cases, but
each one can solve a part of the entitlement. Malmaison approach looks for the extension of time entitlement, and the
burden of proof approach looks for the entitlement of compensation and damages.
On the other hand, dominant cause (all-or-nothing) and apportionment approaches provide a full solution individually
either assigning the full liability to one party or apportion the liability of delays and decide the extension of time and
damages accordingly.
However, the “time but no money” approach can be a fair solution as an application of sett off (no harm, no fool).

Logic and Common Sense
Logic and Common Sense
Unquestionably, critical path analysis is a helpful evidential tool, but it is not always determinative as it has some
limitations according to Mirant Asia Pacific and London Underground Ltd v Citylink Telecommunications Ltd.
If there are insufficient records to simulate the history, the analyst will be in serious difficulty. Furthermore, the quality of
data is crucial, and it may affect the correctness of the analysis. In other words, as critical path analysis can only process
the facts and data fed in, if the inputs are unreliable, the outputs will be unreliable too.
For example, in Skanska Construction UK Ltd v Egger Ltd, the analysis based on baseline programme was of no
evidential use because it included a fundamental error. Also, in Ascon Contracting Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Construction Isle
of Man Ltd, the contractor’s delay analysis was rejected because it was wrong.
These limitations are clear from the fact that analysts may produce different assessments, whether, or not, they have
used the same data and methodology because of the level of subjectivity and amount of assumptions they involve in
identifying the sequence and interpreting results.
Therefore, as it is subjective in nature, it should consider applying common-sense tests.
In John Barker Construction, the judge said that: “the architect, amongst other things, must make a “logical analysis” in a
methodical way of the impact which the relevant matters had or were likely to have on the contractor's planned
programme." Logical analysis should be based on facts and common sense in order to reach reliable results.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

-Contractual entitlement
Typically, construction contracts contain provisions entitling the contractor to
an extension of time on the occurrence of a particular event provided the
progress of the works or time for completion is delayed as a consequence.
-Contractual compliance
Generally within an extension of time clause, the contractor will be obligated to
submit notice(s) and detailed particulars within a specified time frame.
-Governing Law
FIDIC 2017 for Construction: 1.4 Law ..
The Contract shall be governed by the law of the
country (or other jurisdiction) stated in the Contract
Data (if not stated, the law of the Country),
excluding any conflict of law rules.
7- EOT Claims
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

EOT Claim Content
‫ﯾﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ‬ ‫اﻟزﻣﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺑرﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬ ‫ﯾﺿﺎف‬ ‫اﻟزﻣﻧﯾﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻣدﯾدات‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬
:
1
-
‫اﻟﻣطﺎﻟﺑﺔ‬ ‫ھذه‬ ‫اﻟﻰ‬ ‫أدت‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻲ‬ ‫اﻻﺣداث‬ ‫ﺗﻌرﯾف‬
2
-
‫ﻣ‬ ‫إﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻻﺷﺎرة‬ ‫واﻟﻧﺗﯾﺟﺔ‬ ‫اﻷﺛر‬ ‫ﻟﺑﯾﺎن‬ ‫اﻟﻣطﺎﻟﺑﺎت‬ ‫اﺣداث‬ ‫ﺳرد‬
‫ﺳﺗﻧدات‬
‫وارﻓﺎﻗﮭﺎ‬ ‫اﻻﺛﺑﺎت‬
3
-
‫اﻟﻣﺗﻌﻠ‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻌﺎﻗدﯾﺔ‬ ‫واﻻﺟراءات‬ ‫اﻟﺑﻧود‬ ‫ﻣﻊ‬ ‫اﻟﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻣدﯾدات‬
‫ﻘﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻣﻘﺎول‬ ‫وأﺣﻘﯾﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻣوﺿوع‬
4
-
‫ا‬ ‫اﻟﺑراﻣﺞ‬ ‫ﺗﻘدﯾم‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﯾطﻠب‬ ‫ﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻣل‬ ‫اﻟﻣﻌدل‬ ‫اﻟزﻣﻧﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﺑرﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬
‫ﻟزﻣﻧﯾﺔ‬
‫اﻷﺻﻠﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﺣرج‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻣﺳﺎر‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻊ‬
5
-
‫اﻟﻣ‬ ‫اﻟﺟدﯾد‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻌﺎﻗدي‬ ‫اﻟﻧﮭﺎﯾﺔ‬ ‫وﺗﺎرﯾﺦ‬ ‫اﻟزﻣﻧﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻣدﯾد‬ ‫ﺧﻼﺻﺔ‬
‫طﻠوب‬
6
-
‫ﺗرﻗﯾﻣﮭﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻊ‬ ‫اﻟﺳرد‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﯾﮭﺎ‬ ‫اﻻﺷﺎرة‬ ‫ﺗم‬ ‫اﻟﺗﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﻣرﻓﻘﺎت‬
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

8- Recommendations
1. Clarity in contracts and law (definition, CP, TF ownership and consequences).
2. Official pacing notices, to consider the sequence of events and avoid constructive pacing problems.
3. Agreement on LDs for employer delay, SCL recommends that: “20.4 Arguments about proof of loss could
be reduced or avoided altogether if the contract contained an agreed amount per day that can be applied to each day of
prolongation. This is the reverse of the normal Employer's liquidated damages provision. It may be necessary to have a
number of different agreed amounts to be applied depending on the stage in the project.”
4. Due diligence of the mitigation duty by the contractor.
5. Partial taking over option for the sake of both parties.
6. Caring about the soundness of the programme revisions.
7. The EOT entitlements should be reviewed and adjusted with time, until all effects of delay
events are revealed (retrospectively) because the predictions using the prospective analysis are not always correct. However,
it’s normally important to move with lights on and avoid the constructive acceleration problems.
@magedkom /in/magedkom ArabPlanners @profplanner

Related Lectures and Courses
Course at Luqman Academy YouTube Lectures
48

‫ﻧﺷرﺗﮫ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ‬ ‫آﺧر‬
‫اﻟﻣوﺿوع‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬ ‫دورة‬
‫اﻟﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨ‬
‫أﺑﺮز‬ ‫ﺪام‬
‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﺼﺎدرة‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ‬
AACE, SCL,
RICS, ASCE
‫اﻟﻔﻨﯿ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﺎدر‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫واﻟﻌﺪﯾﺪ‬
‫ﺔ‬
‫واﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧﯿﺔ‬
...
‫ﻣﻊ‬
‫اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺎﻻت‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﻛﻤﺎ‬ ،‫وآﺛﺎرھﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺘﮫ‬ ‫وطﺮق‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﺄﺧﯿﺮ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﯾﻢ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﯿﻔﯿﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ‬ ‫اﻟﺪورة‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒ‬
‫ﺎت‬
‫ا‬
‫ﻟﺘﻤﺪﯾﺪ‬
‫ﻟﮭﺎ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻲ‬ ‫وﻣﺜﺎل‬ ‫وﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺗﮭﺎ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺸﺮوع‬ ‫ﻟﻤﺪة‬
.

Thank You
Don’t Hesitate to contact….
M.Maged
magedkom@gmail.com
mobile : 00966-580264968