“Adequate logic is the prerequisite for a CPM schedule…”
It is not only the contractors who came
under scrutiny, in a study by the Chartered
Institute of Building (CIOB) in the UK in
2009 it was indicated that only 14% of
professional respondents were familiar
with the use of a fully-linked critical path
network or programme to manage a
project. Very few principal agents have
the practical experience or expertise in
scheduling which is required to perform
programme reviews, let alone an analysis
of a claim based on such a programme.
I found that of the 15 principal agents
interviewed in our study, none had any
knowledge of applying formal methods
of delay analysis used for calculating
delay. This is not to say they are applying
the wrong methods, it simply indicates
they are applying their own methods,
some of which conforms to the formal
methods and others are simply so
colourful that one can only marvel at
the creativity on display. And marvel we
should, as an Architect, is this not part of
what you get paid for?
Time Claim Conundrum
Professionals are also under pressure
to keep abreast of the latest software
developments in their own field of
expertise. No one can expect them to
also be experts in the widely adopted
scheduling suites like CCS’s Candy,
Primavera or MS Project.
In essence, our conundrum is sum-
marised as follows:
1. The standard forms of agreement we
use, obligate a contractor to submit a
construction programme. These pro-
grammes are now used as the basis
for proving and evaluating claims.
2. Said programmes are created without
any standard or accepted guidelines.
Also, contractors produce these
programmes by means of scheduling
software that is inaccessible by the
professionals presiding over the project.
3. Currently, none of our standard forms
of contract contain an express or any
provision to indicate a specific technique
or method on how a principal agent
should interpret and evaluate the effect
of a delay for the extension of time claim
before awarding it to the contractor.
4. Professionals presiding as principal
agents are experts in their own right
and as such, have limited knowledge
or practical experience in drawing up
construction programmes or using it to
calculate the effect of a delay.
The conundrum contributes to the
subjective and uninformed management
of delay claims within the industry.
Extension of time evaluations are over-
whelmed with complexities and parties
habitually struggle to reach agreement
on the entitlement, evaluation and
duration of events that affected the initial
completion date.
The time has come for our industry
to confront this matter. We need to lift
the veil on the skills and knowledge
requirements of this topic and we need
to agree on a standard going forward.
Without it, I’m afraid we are obstructing
the much needed transparent, amicable
and expeditious resolution of delay claims.
21