Introduction
The Collapsed As-Built Analysis, often called the “But For” Analysis, is a delay analysis technique used to evaluate the impact of specific delay events on the overall project completion date. The key concept of this technique is to assess the question: “But for the delay events, when would the project have been completed?”
In essence, it involves removing the delays from the as-built schedule to understand how the project would have progressed if those delay events had not occurred. This technique is often used in retrospective claims to justify an Extension of Time (EOT) or to determine responsibility for delays.
Key Components of Collapsed As-Built Analysis
- As-Built Schedule:
- The as-built schedule is the actual schedule of the project, showing how it progressed and when each activity was completed. It includes the actual start and finish dates, as well as any delays that occurred during construction.
- Identification of Delay Events:
- The first step is to identify the delay events that occurred during the project. These delays may be due to various reasons, such as client instructions, design changes, site conditions, weather, or contractor-related issues.
- Removing Delay Events:
- The delay events are systematically removed from the as-built schedule to create a “collapsed” schedule. The idea is to simulate what would have happened if the delays had not occurred. By removing these delays, the schedule is recalculated to determine when the project would have been completed.
- Impact Assessment:
- The difference between the collapsed as-built schedule and the original as-built schedule shows the impact of the delay events. This analysis helps determine whether the delay events justify an EOT and which party is responsible for the delays.
Steps in Collapsed As-Built Analysis
1. Prepare the As-Built Schedule:
The starting point for the analysis is the as-built schedule, which shows the actual dates of activities and the overall project completion date. This schedule reflects all delays and disruptions that occurred during the project.
2. Identify Delay Events:
The next step is to identify the specific delay events that occurred. These delays may include:
- Excusable Delays (e.g., weather, force majeure, client-caused delays).
- Non-Excusable Delays (e.g., contractor-caused delays such as poor planning or inadequate resources).
- Compensable Delays (e.g., delays caused by the client that may lead to compensation for the contractor).
3. Remove Delay Events:
Once the delay events are identified, they are removed from the as-built schedule to create the “collapsed” schedule. The purpose of this is to determine when the project would have finished had those delay events not occurred. This step involves:
- Re-sequencing activities: If the delay caused a shift in activity sequencing, the schedule is adjusted to reflect the original sequencing.
- Recalculating completion dates: The project completion date is recalculated without the delay events.
4. Compare Collapsed As-Built vs. As-Built:
The collapsed as-built schedule is compared to the original as-built schedule. The difference between the two indicates the impact of the delay events on the project completion date.
5. Determine Responsibility and Impact:
- The analysis helps determine which delay events caused the overall project delay.
- It identifies whether the delays were caused by the contractor, the client, or external factors (e.g., unforeseen site conditions).
- Based on this analysis, the contractor may claim an EOT for delays caused by excusable or compensable events.
Example of Collapsed As-Built Analysis
Scenario:
A contractor is building a residential apartment complex. The project was originally planned to be completed by December 31, but the actual completion date (as-built) was February 28. During the project, several delays occurred, including:
- Delay A (Client-Requested Design Change): This delay added 30 days to the schedule.
- Delay B (Bad Weather): This delay added 10 days to the schedule.
- Delay C (Contractor Delay): The contractor faced a shortage of materials, causing a delay of 20 days.
Step 1: As-Built Schedule
- Actual Project Completion: February 28 (60 days late).
- The project schedule reflects all delays that occurred during the project.
Step 2: Identify Delay Events
- Delay A (Client): Design change, added 30 days (excusable and compensable).
- Delay B (Weather): Bad weather, added 10 days (excusable but non-compensable).
- Delay C (Contractor): Material shortage, added 20 days (non-excusable).
Step 3: Remove Delay Events
- Remove Delay A: If the client had not requested a design change, the schedule would have been 30 days shorter.
- Remove Delay B: Without the bad weather, the project would have progressed 10 days faster.
- Remove Delay C: If the contractor had not faced a material shortage, the schedule would have been reduced by 20 days.
Step 4: Create Collapsed As-Built Schedule
- After removing all delay events, the collapsed as-built schedule shows that the project would have been completed by December 30.
Step 5: Compare Collapsed As-Built vs. As-Built
- Collapsed As-Built Completion Date: December 30.
- As-Built Completion Date: February 28.
- The total delay is 60 days. Removing all delays shows that the project would have been completed by December 30, meaning the overall delay impact is 60 days.
Step 6: Determine Responsibility
- Delay A (Client-Requested Design Change): The client is responsible for 30 days of delay.
- Delay B (Weather): The weather caused a 10-day delay, which is excusable but non-compensable.
- Delay C (Contractor Delay): The contractor is responsible for a 20-day delay due to the material shortage.
Result:
- The contractor can submit an Extension of Time (EOT) claim for 40 days (30 days for the design change and 10 days for bad weather).
- The contractor is responsible for 20 days of delay, which is non-excusable, and no EOT is granted for that portion.
Advantages of Collapsed As-Built Analysis
- Clear Causation of Delays: This technique is useful in identifying which specific delays caused the project’s extension, helping to clarify responsibility.
- Suitable for Complex Projects: It is especially effective in projects with multiple delays and disruption events, as it helps break down which events contributed to the delay.
- Ideal for Retrospective Claims: It provides a clear picture of the past events and how they impacted the project schedule, making it ideal for dispute resolution or litigation.
Disadvantages of Collapsed As-Built Analysis
- Subjective Interpretation: There is some subjectivity in determining which delays should be removed and how to handle concurrent delays.
- Data-Intensive: This method requires detailed project records and documentation to accurately assess the impact of each delay.
- Potential for Over-Simplification: By removing delays, the analysis may oversimplify the complex interactions between activities and events, missing out on concurrent delays or mitigation efforts that were undertaken during the project.
Application in Dispute Resolution
The Collapsed As-Built Analysis is commonly used in arbitration, mediation, or litigation when the contractor and client dispute responsibility for delays. It helps demonstrate the impact of delays on the overall project completion and is particularly effective in cases where the project has multiple delays and disruptions that need to be carefully dissected.
Conclusion
The Collapsed As-Built Analysis (But For Analysis) is a powerful delay analysis technique used to assess the impact of specific delay events on a construction project. By removing delays from the as-built schedule, it provides insight into when the project would have been completed “but for” those delays. This method helps identify the cause and responsibility of delays and is widely used in Extension of Time (EOT) claims and dispute resolution. Proper documentation, a well-maintained as-built schedule, and accurate delay identification are crucial to the success of this analysis technique.