As-Planned vs. As-Built Delay Analysis in Construction.

Introduction

The As-Planned vs. As-Built Analysis is one of the simplest and most commonly used techniques to evaluate the impact of delays in a construction project. It involves comparing the as-planned schedule (the schedule agreed upon at the beginning of the project) with the as-built schedule (the actual schedule showing how the project progressed and was completed). The goal is to identify any variances between the planned and actual execution of activities, which helps in determining the impact of delays and justifying an Extension of Time (EOT) claim.

This analysis is particularly useful in retrospective delay analysis, where the contractor or client seeks to understand how delays affected the project completion date after the fact.

Key Components of As-Planned vs. As-Built Analysis

As-Planned Schedule:

The as-planned schedule is the baseline schedule that is developed at the start of the project. It outlines the sequence of construction activities, their durations, start and finish dates, and their interdependencies. This schedule reflects how the contractor intends to execute the project from start to completion.

As-Built Schedule:

The as-built schedule reflects the actual progress of the project, including the actual start and finish dates for each activity, the duration of delays, and the reasons for those delays. This schedule is created after or during the construction process to track deviations from the original plan.

Comparison Process:

In the analysis, the as-planned activities are compared to the corresponding as-built activities. The differences in start and finish dates, as well as in durations, help identify any delays or disruptions that occurred during the project.

Identification of Delays:

By comparing both schedules, the analyst can determine:
- Which activities were delayed.
- Whether the delays occurred on critical path activities (activities that directly affect the project’s completion date).
- The total impact of these delays on the overall project duration.

Critical Path Impact:

The delays are analyzed to assess whether they affected the project’s critical path. Delays on the critical path are more likely to justify an EOT claim because they extend the overall project completion date, while delays on non-critical activities may not have a significant impact.

Steps in As-Planned vs. As-Built Analysis

1. Prepare the As-Planned Schedule:

The contractor develops a detailed as-planned schedule at the start of the project. This schedule should include:

List of activities.
Planned start and finish dates.
Duration of each activity.
Dependencies between activities.
Critical path activities.

2. Record the As-Built Schedule:

During or after construction, the as-built schedule is prepared to show the actual dates when activities started and finished. This schedule is based on site logs, progress reports, and daily records.

3. Compare the Two Schedules:

The as-planned and as-built schedules are compared activity by activity to identify variances. The comparison highlights:

Activities that were delayed.
Activities that were completed on time or ahead of schedule.
Any deviations in the sequence of activities.

4. Identify Delay Events:

For each variance, the analysis must determine the cause of the delay and whether the delay was excusable (beyond the contractor’s control) or non-excusable (the contractor’s responsibility).

5. Assess Impact on Critical Path:

Delays that occur on the critical path are particularly important because they directly affect the project completion date. The analysis checks whether the delayed activities were on the critical path and recalculates the project’s overall completion date.

6. Prepare EOT Claim:

Based on the analysis, the contractor prepares an Extension of Time (EOT) claim if delays were excusable and affected the critical path. The EOT claim includes the revised completion date and supporting evidence of delays.

Example of As-Planned vs. As-Built Analysis

Project Scenario:
A contractor is building a shopping mall, and the project has a planned completion date of December 31. The baseline schedule includes critical activities such as excavation, foundation work, steel framing, and roofing.

As-Planned Schedule (Baseline):

Excavation: Start on January 1, finish by January 15.
Foundation Work: Start on January 16, finish by January 31.
Steel Framing: Start on February 1, finish by February 28.
Roofing: Start on March 1, finish by March 15.
Final Handover: December 31.

As-Built Schedule:

Excavation: Started on January 1 and finished on January 15 (on time).
Foundation Work: Delayed due to unforeseen underground utilities, started on February 1 and finished on February 20 (20 days late).
Steel Framing: Delayed, started on February 25 and finished on March 25 (25 days late).
Roofing: Delayed, started on April 1 and finished on April 10 (25 days late).
Final Handover: January 31 (delayed by 31 days).

Comparison:

Excavation: Completed as planned, no delay.
Foundation Work: Delayed by 20 days due to unforeseen underground utilities (an excusable delay event).
Steel Framing: Start delayed by 24 days due to the delayed foundation work (critical path delay).
Roofing: Delayed by 25 days because the steel framing was late (critical path delay).

Analysis:

The as-built schedule shows that the foundation work was delayed by 20 days due to unforeseen underground utilities, which were not identified during the initial site survey. This is an excusable delay because the contractor could not have foreseen the issue.
The delay in foundation work caused subsequent delays in steel framing and roofing, both of which were on the critical path. As a result, the overall project was delayed by 31 days, with the final handover occurring on January 31 instead of December 31.

Conclusion of the Analysis:

The contractor can file an EOT claim for 31 days because the delay in foundation work (due to unforeseen conditions) triggered a chain reaction of delays on critical path activities, extending the overall project completion date.
The contractor will seek both an extension of time and, potentially, compensation if the contract allows for recovery of costs associated with excusable delays (e.g., for idle resources, extended equipment rental).

Advantages of As-Planned vs. As-Built Analysis

Simplicity: It’s a straightforward method for comparing what was planned with what actually occurred, making it easy to identify delays and disruptions.
Clarity: Provides a clear, visual comparison between planned and actual progress, making it easy for both parties (contractor and client) to understand where the delays occurred.
Effective for Retrospective Analysis: This method is particularly useful for evaluating delays after the project is completed or during a later phase.

Disadvantages of As-Planned vs. As-Built Analysis

Limited to Retrospective Analysis: This method is best suited for analyzing delays after they occur, making it less effective for managing delays in real-time.
No Dynamic Updates: Since the comparison is usually done after the fact, it does not provide a dynamic, ongoing assessment of the project, unlike other techniques such as Window Analysis.
May Not Consider Complex Interactions: It might not fully account for complex delay interactions, such as concurrent delays or acceleration efforts.

Conclusion:

The As-Planned vs. As-Built Analysis is a fundamental delay analysis technique in construction projects. By comparing the baseline schedule to the actual progress, it helps identify delays, assess their causes, and determine whether an Extension of Time (EOT) is justified. The analysis focuses heavily on the critical path, as delays to critical activities will directly affect the overall project completion date. This method is particularly useful for retrospective claims, where the impact of delays needs to be assessed after they have occurred.