Narrative report for As-Planned vs. As-Built delay Analysis.

Project Overview

• Project Name: ABC Tower Construction Project
• Contractor: XYZ Construction Ltd.
• Client: DEF Real Estate
• Original Baseline Approval Date: January 1, 2024
• Contract Completion Date: December 31, 2024
• As-Built Analysis Date: September 1, 2024

Introduction

This report provides a detailed comparison between the As-Planned and As-Built schedules for the ABC Tower Construction Project. The analysis aims to identify and quantify delays by comparing the originally planned schedule (baseline) with the actual progress made to date.

The As-Planned vs. As-Built delay analysis is crucial for understanding the reasons behind project delays, evaluating the impact on the project timeline, and supporting claims for extensions of time or other contractual adjustments. This report outlines the methodology, key findings, and recommendations based on the delay analysis.

1. Methodology

A. Data Collection

• As-Planned Schedule: The baseline schedule approved on January 1, 2024, detailing the originally planned sequence, duration, and completion dates for all project activities.
• As-Built Schedule: The actual schedule reflecting the progress achieved as of September 1, 2024, including start and finish dates for completed activities and the remaining work.

B. Comparison Approach

• Critical Path Analysis: Comparison of the critical path in the As-Planned schedule against the actual critical path in the As-Built schedule to determine shifts and delays.
• Milestone Comparison: Evaluation of key project milestones to identify deviations from the planned completion dates.
• Activity-Level Comparison: Detailed comparison of individual activities, including start and finish dates, to identify delays and their causes.

C. Tools Used

• Primavera P6: Project management software used for scheduling and analysis.
• Delay Analysis Software: Additional tools for quantifying delays and generating reports.

2. Key Findings

A. Critical Path Analysis

The critical path, which originally included the following key activities:

1. Foundation Completion
2. Structural Steel Erection
3. Façade Installation
4. MEP Rough-in
5. Interior Finishing

As-Planned Critical Path:

• Foundation Completion: April 1, 2024
• Structural Steel Erection: June 15, 2024
• Façade Installation: October 15, 2024
• MEP Rough-in: August 1, 2024
• Interior Finishing: November 15, 2024

As-Built Critical Path:

• Foundation Completion: April 20, 2024 (Delayed by 15 days)
• Structural Steel Erection: July 5, 2024 (Delayed by 20 days)
• Façade Installation: November 1, 2024 (Delayed by 17 days)
• MEP Rough-in: August 15, 2024 (Delayed by 14 days)
• Interior Finishing: December 1, 2024 (Delayed by 16 days)

The critical path in the As-Built schedule has shifted, with several activities delayed beyond their planned completion dates, leading to an overall project delay.

B. Milestone Comparison

• Foundation Completion Milestone:
• As-Planned: April 1, 2024
• As-Built: April 20, 2024 (15 days delayed)
• Structural Steel Erection Milestone:
• As-Planned: June 15, 2024
• As-Built: July 5, 2024 (20 days delayed)
• Façade Installation Milestone:
• As-Planned: October 15, 2024
• As-Built: November 1, 2024 (17 days delayed)
• Interior Finishing Milestone:
• As-Planned: November 15, 2024
• As-Built: December 1, 2024 (16 days delayed)

C. Activity-Level Delays

Detailed analysis of individual activities reveals several critical delays:

• Foundation Work: Delay due to unforeseen underground conditions and extended excavation work.
• Structural Steel Erection: Delay caused by delayed delivery of steel materials and extended erection time.
• Façade Installation: Delay due to adverse weather conditions and extended fabrication time for custom materials.
• MEP Rough-in: Delay due to subcontractor performance issues and late equipment delivery.
• Interior Finishing: Delay due to late completion of MEP rough-in and extended curing time for construction materials.

3. Causes of Delays

A. Unforeseen Site Conditions

Unforeseen underground utilities and unsuitable soil conditions caused delays in the foundation work, affecting the subsequent critical path activities.

B. Adverse Weather Conditions

Heavy rains during the summer months led to delays in exterior work, including structural steel erection and façade installation.

C. Design Changes

Client-requested design modifications necessitated rework and additional time for material procurement and installation.

D. Subcontractor Performance

Performance issues with key subcontractors, particularly in the MEP trades, contributed to delays in interior work.

E. Material Delivery Delays

Delayed delivery of critical materials, including structural steel and façade components, affected the project schedule.

4. Impact on Project Completion Date

The delays identified in the As-Planned vs. As-Built analysis have resulted in a projected delay of 45 days. The original contract completion date of December 31, 2024 is now projected to be February 14, 2025, assuming no further delays occur.

Overall Delay Summary:

• Total Delay: 45 days
• Revised Completion Date: February 14, 2025

5. Mitigation Strategies

To address the delays and minimize further impact, the following mitigation strategies are being implemented:

A. Acceleration of Critical Path Activities

Additional labor and resources are being allocated to critical path activities, including structural steel erection and façade installation, to recover lost time.

B. Improved Coordination with Subcontractors

Enhanced coordination with subcontractors to ensure timely completion of MEP installations and interior finishing activities.

C. Expedited Material Procurement

Procurement processes are being expedited for critical materials, and alternative suppliers are being considered to prevent further delays.

D. Enhanced Weather Contingency Planning

Planning for adverse weather conditions is being improved, with additional measures in place to protect work sites and minimize weather-related delays.

6. Recommendations

A. Review and Update Schedule

Regular reviews and updates of the project schedule are recommended to accurately reflect progress and any new delays.

B. Submit Extension of Time (EOT) Claim

An EOT claim should be submitted to the client based on the delay analysis, including the detailed reasons for delays and the revised completion date.

C. Strengthen Project Controls

Enhance project controls and monitoring processes to better identify and address delays in real-time.

7. Conclusion

The As-Planned vs. As-Built delay analysis for the ABC Tower Construction Project highlights significant delays in several critical activities, resulting in an overall project delay of 45 days. The analysis has identified key causes of delays, including unforeseen site conditions, adverse weather, design changes, subcontractor performance issues, and material delivery delays.

The project team is actively implementing mitigation strategies to recover lost time and minimize further delays. A revised project completion date of February 14, 2025 is projected, and an Extension of Time (EOT) claim will be submitted to address the delays.

Regular monitoring and updates to the project schedule will be essential to ensure the successful and timely completion of the project.

Submitted by:
XYZ Construction Ltd.
[Your Name]
Project Manager
[Date]