Upload
akinbode-sunday-oluwagbenga
View
71
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Final Time Impact Analysis for Complex Projects
Citation preview
1
Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Construction SuperConference
Time Impact Analysis®
for Complex Projects
San Francisco, CADecember 2006
Presented by:Robert C. McCue, P.E. of MDCSystems®Patrick J. O'Connor, Jr., Esquire of Faegre & Benson
Session E8 10:45a.m. – 12:00 p.m.Thursday, December 7, 2006
2Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
The Trouble with Scheduling Analysis
• Complexity• Lack of transparency• Subjectivity• Cost
2
3Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to use or rely on the original schedule: See Pathman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 23392, 85-2 BCA ¶18, 096 (1985).– Two opposing experts produce after-the-facts
schedules (both unreliable).
4Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to use or rely on the original schedule: See Pathman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 23392, 85-2 BCA ¶18, 096 (1985).– C’s expert labeled the original bar chart as
meaningless and chose to prepared an after-the-fact CPM; because of changes made to original plan by expert, the CPM found unreliable.
3
5Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to use or rely on the original schedule: See Pathman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 23392, 85-2 BCA ¶18, 096 (1985).– G’s expert created his own schedule, also relied on
C’s schedule and at times referred to the original bar chart and at times applied his own knowledge and beliefs with regard to construction.
6Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to consider actual performance.• Ealahan Elec. Co., DOT BCA No. 1959, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,
177 (1990).– Opposing experts failed to consider actual
performance.– C’s expert converted a bar chart contract
requirement into a CPM schedule; however, in doing so, failed to account for C’s actual performance.
4
7Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to consider actual performance.• Ealahan Elec. Co., DOT BCA No. 1959, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,
177 (1990).– A G expert failed to take into consideration reasons
why particular activities were delayed and used approximation techniques for quantifying actual durations (ultimately failed to demonstrate causation).
8Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Unacceptability of an analysis of as-planned plus impacts. See Titan Pacific Constr. Corp., ASBCA Nos. 24148, 24616, 26692, 87-1BCA ¶ 19, 626 (1987), summary judgment granted, 17 Cl.Ct. 630 (1989), Aff’d 899 F.2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 1990).– C expert prepared A/P schedule plus impacts but
ignored actual performance.
5
9Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Unacceptability of an analysis of as-planned plus impacts (cont’d).– C’s “like-time” analysis included a revised A/P
schedule (adjusted for seasonal considerations), which produced a different critical path and completion date and then added Owner-caused and weather-related delays to obtain a projected (theoretical) completion date.
10Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Unacceptability of an analysis of as- planned plus impacts (cont’d).– BD rejected analysis as purely theoretical. See
also, Freeman-Darling, Inc., GSBCA No. 7112, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21, 882 (1989).
6
11Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to establish correlation between plan, changes, actual performance and contemporaneous records. See Titan Mountain States Constr. Corp., ASBCA No. 23095, 85-1 BCA ¶ 17, 931 (1985). – C’s expert failed to establish causal relationship
between mods and alleged delays attributable to them.
12Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to establish correlation . . . (cont’d)
– Expert prepared an A/P vs. A/B analysis with a comparison of various updates to show delays.
– BD found that such comparison disclosed only differences between them and not causes of those differences.
– CPM updates alone insufficient to establish that COs caused delay.
7
13Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to establish correlation . . . (cont’d)
– Expert did not personally examine CPM printouts, quality control and quality assurance reports or payrolls (only cursorily reviewed project correspondence and other documents and had no contact with any of the subs).
14Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to consider one’s own delays. See Gulf Constr., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 30195, 32839, 33867, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21, 812, Aff’d on Recon., 90-1 BCA ¶ 22, 393 (1989), Aff’d 23 Cl.Ct. 525, Aff’d, 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir.), Cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 598 (1992).– Expert failed to consider delays for which C was
responsible.
8
15Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to consider one’s own delays (cont’d).– Expert took approved CPM schedule and revised it
to correct certain logic errors and incorporate crew restraints.
– Created a revised CPM for use as a benchmark schedule and then prepared analysis of G-caused delays and made a comparison of A/P vs. A/B s.
16Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to consider one’s own delays (cont’d).– Expert performed in-depth review of all project
correspondence and data pertinent to progress of project but was instructed to exclude all disruptions except those caused by G.
9
17Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to consider one’s own delays (cont’d).– G expert presented revised A/P. and an analysis of
5 Contractor-caused delays that impacted project’s critical path.
– C’s analysis unreliable and inherently biased.
18Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to keep schedules up to date and reflecting delays as they occur. See FortecConstr. v. U.S., 8 Cl.Ct. 490 (1985).– Failure to account for delays “as they
occurred” can call into question one’s analysis. See e.g., Ballenger Corp., DOTBCA No. 74-32, 74-32A, 72-32H, 84-1 BCA ¶ 16, 973 at 84, 524 (1983); Preston-Brady Co., VABCA Nos. 1892, 1991, 2555, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19, 649 (1987).
10
19Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to involve the right people in the delay analysis. See Turner Constr. Co., ASBCA Nos. 25447, 29472, 29591, 29592, 29830, 29851, 29852, 90-2 BCA ¶ 22, 649 (1990).– G’s expert’s analysis rejected because limited and
cursory review of project DOCS (that were selected by G, not expert).
20Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Failure to involve the right people . . . (cont’d)– Information compiled by individuals who had
nothing to do with actual performance.– Substantial portion of analysis was delegated by
expert to associates whose qualifications were questionable.
11
21Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Methodology Problems
• Need to avoid adversarial interests. See Nello L. TeerCo., ENGBCA No. 4376, 83-3 BCA ¶ 19, 326 (1986).– CPM schedule becomes suspect when C and G have
developed adversarial interests.– Too many variables in schedule subject to
manipulation to permit acceptance of conclusions by CPM consultants in such circumstances.
22Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Common Problems
• Modified “total time” – simply throwing in some self-caused delays without analysis – ad hoc
• Ignoring concurrent delays– Failure to account for pacing
• Ignoring your own delays
12
23Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Time Impact Analysis (TIA®)
TIA® is – A technique for apportioning actual delay which
has occurred– A retrospective analysis using 20 – 20 hindsight– It is not a prospective analysis which requires
predictions about future occurrences– Is it really a TIA®?
24Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Computer Based Electronic Schedules
• Electronic Schedules, essential for today's environment
• Constraints, Restraints and Logic ties• Computer based schedules are Models of the planned
work• Computer based as-built schedules are records of the
actual work
13
25Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
TIA® Requirements
As-Planned Schedule– Contract Dates (Milestones)– Logical Relationships (Work Sequence)– Reasonable Durations
As-Built Schedule– Actual activity start dates– Actual activity completion dates– Change Orders inserted
26Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Recommended TIA® Procedure
1. Determine the baseline (as-planned) schedule for the analysis.2. Establish the reasonableness of the baseline activity durations
and logic, and revise as required. This results in a revised baseline.
3. Determine the source and reliability of as-built data.4. Select the first Time Impact Analysis (TIA)® date and
determine the progress of all activities, to that date.5. Note any delaying events which occurred during the analysis
period (late progress).6. Update the revised baseline for progress during the analysis
period (progress override).7. Identify and insert new activities as necessary.8. Revise remaining durations using Contractors projected
schedule.9. Note change in project completion date.
14
27Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Recommended TIA® Procedure cont…
10. Determine cause and responsibility (owner, Contractor, etc.) for the change in project completion date (technical review of activity).
11. Inspect the network for controlling delays and note.12. Repeat steps 4-11 for each analysis.13. Develop successive Time Impact Analysis (TIA)® around
critical activity delays and controlling delays until the analysis reaches project completion, using as-built data.
14. Summarize the results of the analysis using simplified summary graphics.
15. Run comparative schedule analysis to ascertain all changes to the successive Time Impact Analysis (TIA)® schedules and summarize.
16. Identify and highlight on the summary graphics, the controlling and critical delays.
28Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Dancing with the Schedule
• The schedule is a model of the intended work plan• The schedule is only as good as the plan• Multiple layers of interactions between the activities of the
schedule may not be modeled (scheduled) at all• The schedule is not precise and will be revised many times
during the course of the actual work• While exact calculations of events can be made, as a practical
matter, schedule calculations lack precision
15
29Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Dancing with the Schedule
• The schedule is a tool to help manage the work• The actual work will not mimic the plan• Physical relationships on the work site will control actual work
activities and may not be in the logic• The management or forensic value of the construction schedule
is directly related to the effort invested in preparing, up-dating and replanning the schedule
• Self organizing, nonlinear, feedback systems are unpredictable*
* The Systems Thinker Volume 13 Number 2 (Dancing with Systems by DonellaMeadows)
30Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Project Examples
– Refinery Renovation120 million dollar Refinery Utilities Up-
Grade and expansion project in the middle east
– Submarine PipelineFive Foot Diameter, 12,000 meter
Cement Encased Pipeline
16
31Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Refinery Project Analysis
• Apportion Delay, Owner – EPC Contractor– Defective Design– Site Conditions– Changes– Owner Interference
32Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Refinery Project AnalysisBlending, Storage & Transfer System
• The BS&T System consists of tanks, pumps, blenders/mixers, and piping to handle storage for new process plant feeds and products; provide in-line blending of motor gasoline, diesel and fuel oil; transfer unit feeds, intermediate products, blending components, and finished products; and, cool black oil. Existing services and equipment will be refurbished and relocated from other areas.
17
33Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
BS&T Issues
• Owner delayed start of construction due to drainage issues
• U/G obstructions
• Owners inaccurate as-built drawings
• Changes in Owners OMSB philosophy
• HAZOP Review
• Black Oil sump foundation delay (TEL contamination)
34Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Schedule Summary
• As-Planned Schedule• As-Built Schedule• Change Orders• Comparison of 90% Engineering• IFC Drawing Analysis
18
35Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Major Change Orders
• 52 – Revise pumps, electrical, foundations, etc of Diesel, Fuel Oil and Mogas blenders. BS&W estimated $2,888,739.
• 63, 64, & 88 – Piping, instrumentation and junction box as-builts. These were required because the as-built data provided by Owner was inaccurate.
• 67 – Oil Movement, Storage and Blending revision. BS&W estimated $519,660 with an 81/2 month schedule impact.
36Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Major Change Orders cont…
• 120 – BS&T HAZOP revisions. BS&W estimated $241,408. • 122 – Inter-contract instrumentation changes. Compensates BS&W
for the additional work discussed in the March 1996 Packages 2 & 5 coordination meeting. BS&W estimated $203,826 and 2 to 4 monthsof schedule adjustment.
• 152 – BS&T instrumentation changes. Compensates BS&W for the procurement and construction changes resulting from CO #67. BS&W estimated $489,277.
19
37Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
As-Planned Schedule
38Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
As-Built Schedule
20
39Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Change Orders
40Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Oct 1997
June 19, 1995 & June 17 1995 BS&W Schedule Analysis
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Mechanical Completion Certificate
July 26, 1994 Bid Schedule (RAST)
Owner Approved Reconstructed (CPM) Schedule with June 1995
Impacts
Jan 1999
Blending, Storage & Transfer Mechanical Completion Analysis
15 months delay
Bid vs Completed Schedule Delay
Oct 1997
Jun 1998Mar 1998
21
41Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
BS&T Summary
• Engineering delayed 24 Months• 90% Engineering delayed 9 Months• IFC Drawings delayed 24 Months• Mechanical Completion delayed 16 Months• Impacted by 53 Change Orders
42Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Schedule Analysis
• TIA’s® would be meaningless• As-Planned schedule was fundamentally defective• Re-Planned schedules were rigged• CO’s not incorporated into the schedules• Constrained milestone dates• Fixed inter-system and inter-package dates
22
43Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Refinery Analysis Summary
• Observations and Comments
44Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Submarine Pipeline Analysis
• Original Schedule 80 Activities
• As-Built – 140 Activities
23
45Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Schedule Analysis Results
• Contractor Delay Analysis – 500 days of delay, Owner Responsibility
• Time Impact Analysis® – 140 Days of total delay, Contractor Responsibility
46Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Submarine Pipeline Analysis
• Apportion Delay, Owner-Contractor– Issues Giving Rise to Delay– Weather– Underwater conditions– Damage to Pipeline
24
47Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Activity Status
• Physical Units• Schedule Data Reporting• Daily Records
48Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Analysis Schedules
Submarine Pipeline As-Planned Schedule
Submarine Pipeline TIA Summary
Submarine Pipeline Work During Exclusion Periods
25
49Time Impact Analysis® for Complex Projects
Contact Us!
Robert C. McCue, P.E.
MDCSystems®
300 Berwyn ParkSuite 115
Berwyn, PA 19312610-640-9600
Patrick J. O’Connor, Jr., Esq.
Faegre & Benson, LLP2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South 7th StreetMinneapolis, MN 55402
612-766-7413
*Time Impact AnalysisSM and TIASM are service marks of IMDISI Inc.
*Time Impact Analysis® is Registered Trademark # 1701267 of IMDISI, Inc. in the European Union
** TIA® is Registered Trademark # 1700210 of IMDISI, Inc. in the European Union