{"title":"Comparative Study of Prospective Delay Analysis Techniques (DATs)","authors":"S. Ghimire, A. Mishra","doi":"10.36348/sjce.2019.v03i05.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Delays are the major sources of disputes and adverse relationships between the stakeholders in construction industry. The existing delay analysis techniques (DATs), though helpful for decision-making, have not succeeded in properly addressing the high incidence of disputes associated with delay claims resolutions. This research has made a comparative study of limitation and capabilities of different ̳Prospective‘ DATs i.e., Impacted as Planned method and Time Impact Analysis Method under the same baseline program and under similar circumstances of delay occurrence through the case study of under-Construction Hydroelectric Project and review of the relevant issues not addressed by the techniques. Oracle‘s Primavera (P6) software has been used for delay analysis. The Contractor has not followed any of the DATs to raise the claim for extension of time. Though the contractor has submitted its revised construction schedule as per the FIDIC conditions of contract and ask for time extension of 721 days, the revised construction schedule has no any linkage with the original approved baseline Schedule. The Impacted as planned technique confined the delay to 621 days. The actual site condition and the progress were not considered in this method. The concurrent delays and pacing delays were also not addressed. According to the Time Impact analysis technique, the contractor‘s caused delay was 101 days and the delay from Employer‘s side was 529 days. The actual site condition and the progress were considered in this method. However, none of the Delay analysis techniques is found to address all the delay occurring events. The concurrent delays and pacing delayswere also not addressed. Time impact analysis technique is more accurate method as the site progress is incorporated in this method and is recommended to be followed.","PeriodicalId":437137,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Journal of Civil Engineering","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Journal of Civil Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36348/sjce.2019.v03i05.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
Delays are the major sources of disputes and adverse relationships between the stakeholders in construction industry. The existing delay analysis techniques (DATs), though helpful for decision-making, have not succeeded in properly addressing the high incidence of disputes associated with delay claims resolutions. This research has made a comparative study of limitation and capabilities of different ̳Prospective‘ DATs i.e., Impacted as Planned method and Time Impact Analysis Method under the same baseline program and under similar circumstances of delay occurrence through the case study of under-Construction Hydroelectric Project and review of the relevant issues not addressed by the techniques. Oracle‘s Primavera (P6) software has been used for delay analysis. The Contractor has not followed any of the DATs to raise the claim for extension of time. Though the contractor has submitted its revised construction schedule as per the FIDIC conditions of contract and ask for time extension of 721 days, the revised construction schedule has no any linkage with the original approved baseline Schedule. The Impacted as planned technique confined the delay to 621 days. The actual site condition and the progress were not considered in this method. The concurrent delays and pacing delays were also not addressed. According to the Time Impact analysis technique, the contractor‘s caused delay was 101 days and the delay from Employer‘s side was 529 days. The actual site condition and the progress were considered in this method. However, none of the Delay analysis techniques is found to address all the delay occurring events. The concurrent delays and pacing delayswere also not addressed. Time impact analysis technique is more accurate method as the site progress is incorporated in this method and is recommended to be followed.
延误是建筑行业利益相关者之间纠纷和不利关系的主要来源。现有的延迟分析技术(dat)虽然有助于决策,但未能成功地妥善解决与延迟索赔解决相关的高发生率纠纷。本研究通过对在建水电项目的案例分析,对相同基线方案和类似延迟发生情况下不同的“预期影响分析法”即“计划影响分析法”和“时间影响分析法”的局限性和能力进行了比较研究,并对技术未解决的相关问题进行了评述。Oracle的Primavera (P6)软件被用于延迟分析。承包商没有按照任何日期提出延期索赔。尽管承包商已按照FIDIC合同条件提交了修改后的施工进度计划,并要求延长721天的工期,但修改后的施工进度计划与原批准的基线进度计划没有任何联系。impact as planned技术将延迟时间限制在621天。该方法未考虑现场实际情况和施工进度。同时出现的延迟和节奏延迟也没有得到解决。根据时间影响分析技术,承包商造成的延误为101天,雇主方面的延误为529天。该方法考虑了现场的实际情况和施工进度。然而,没有发现任何延迟分析技术可以解决所有延迟发生的事件。同时出现的延迟和速度延迟也没有得到解决。时间影响分析技术由于纳入了现场进度,是一种较为准确的方法,建议采用。