FACULTY OF SCIENCE,

ENGINEERING AND COMPUTING

School of Civil Engineering and Construction

Department of Construction and Surveying

MSc DEGREE IN Quantity Surveying

Name: Jiho Park

ID Number: K1631052
Project Title: Delay Analysis Techniques

Date: 15th September 2017

Supervisor: David White

WARRANTY STATEMENT
This is a student project. Therefore, neither the student nor Kingston University makes any
warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the data or conclusion of the work
performed in the project and will not be held responsible for any consequences arising out of
any inaccuracies or omissions therein.

i
Declaration
I confirm that all the work produced in this research project is solely my own and that the use of
any other sources of information or materials have been fully acknowledged by means of
appropriate citation and referencing.

i
Abstract
Due to different characteristics of the construction industry from other industries, claims or disputes
in construction arise inevitably. In particular, disputes caused by time delays in construction are not
easily solved due to the complexity of the occurrence and analysis. While it is important both to
identify and prevent the cause of construction delays and to use appropriate dispute resolution
procedures, it is also essential to start its documentation before the delays occur not after it happens.
Due to the necessary knowledge of contractual and legal background and the high skill of project
schedule management programs (e.g. MS project, Primavera), construction delay claims are mostly
regarded as experts' areas. Therefore, understanding how to analyse construction delays will help
resolve disputes related to construction delays by enabling documentation earlier. In literature review,
the various causes of construction delays and its classification on contract liability were reviewed.
This knowledge regarding the causes of delay is necessary to investigate what is due to be excusable
and compensable delay (EC), excusable and non-compensable delay (EN), and non-excusable and
non-compensable delay (NN) as a result of the construction delay analysis. Then, various
construction delay analysis techniques (DAT) used in the present work are reviewed. In this paper,
numbers are used (e.g. DAT1~6) instead of names to distinguish the differences in analysis, because
they are so many, and even though they are of the same kind, different people use different names.
In this study, 32 pilot analyses were conducted to compare the DAT1~6 differences with DAT6. In
the same situation (i.e. same as-planned program, as-built program, delay events), it is found that
the result of construction delay analysis varies according to DAT1~6, and it is also found that there
is some degree of difference and pattern. In addition, a case study showed that even if the same
DAT is used in the same situation, various results may possible in a complex situation (e.g. mitigation,
slowdown, and concurrent delay). It is also known as a notification that makes the most accurate
analysis possible in case of complex situation. This notification has a function to issue revised as-
planned program. Due to these important features, these notifications are compulsory in many
standard contracts, so these conditions in a few standard contracts are compared.

ii
Acknowledgement
First of all, I am very grateful and appreciate my company for giving me the opportunity to study
in United Kingdom. I would like to especially express my gratitude to senior vice president Jung
Hoon and former project manager Lee Kisoon for their recommendation and approval. I am also
very grateful to Prof, Jae-Jun Kim of Hanyang University, where my bachelor degree was conferred,
for his recommendation to study this course..

Furthermore, I would also like to thank Tina Papadopoulu, Suha Jaradat, Mahtab Farshchi for their
dedicated lectures, advice and especially my dissertation supervisor David White during the course
of semester and dissertation works.

I am also very grateful to my friends and course mates who took the classes and carried out
coursework together.

Lastly, I thank my wife Junghyun and my three children Minkyu, Minkeon and Seojeong who have
been with me in the United Kingdom. I am very grateful for their support and encouragement. My
parents who encouraged me from the far country South Korea, I say thank you.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Research Rationale ..............................................................................................................................................3
2 Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Causes of delay in construction ....................................................................................................................4
2.2 Type of delay .........................................................................................................................................................6
2.3 Delay Analysis Techniques (DATs) .................................................................................................................9
2.4 Delay Assessment............................................................................................................................................. 14
2.5 Gap to tackle ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
3 Objective and Methodology .............................................................................................16
3.1 Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Research Objective........................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
4 Analysis of matrix of pilot cases .....................................................................................19
4.1 Criteria for 32 pilot cases .............................................................................................................................. 19
4.2 Delay analysis of A2-B2-C2-D1 case using DAT1~6.......................................................................... 22
4.3 Delay analysis of remaining 31 pilot cases ........................................................................................... 29
4.4 Expectation calculation .................................................................................................................................. 31
5 Case studies – Concurrent Delay .....................................................................................32
5.1 Concurrency with other path....................................................................................................................... 34
5.2 Concurrency On same path ......................................................................................................................... 37
5.3 Concurrency on one activity ........................................................................................................................ 40
6 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................43

iv
 6.1 Difference Results ............................................................................................................................................. 43
6.2 Different required Data .................................................................................................................................. 44
6.3 Notification as condition precedent ......................................................................................................... 45
6.4 Approaches on Concurrent delay .............................................................................................................. 47
6.5 Contract condition of inclement weather .............................................................................................. 48
7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................49
7.1 Limitation ............................................................................................................................................................. 49
7.2 Recommendation ............................................................................................................................................. 49
8 References ............................................................................................................................50
9 Appendices ...........................................................................................................................53
9.1 Flow chart – dispute minimization and settlement ........................................................................... 53
9.2 Flow chart – dispute occurrence from concurrent delay................................................................. 54
9.3 DAT1~6 analysis of 32 cases ....................................................................................................................... 55
9.4 RESEARCH ETHICS FORM ...........................................................................................................................157

v
List of Tables
Table 2-1- Major causes of delays in construction ...................................................................................................4
Table 2-2- Delay types and its contractual implication ..........................................................................................7
Table 2-3- example of delay type classification in JCT contract .........................................................................8
Table 2-4 - Research of delay analysis techniques .....................................................................................................9
Table 2-5- Common name used in practice ............................................................................................................. 12
Table 2-6 - Summary of delay analysis technique .................................................................................................... 13
Table 2-7- Lack of case study of delay analysis method with complex issues .......................................... 15
Table 4-1- Reduction of Time condition in JCT & FIDIC ..................................................................................... 19
Table 4-2- Four Criteria for 32 pilot cases................................................................................................................. 20
Table 4-3- Activity definition of pilot case ................................................................................................................ 20
Table 4-4- Matrix of 32 pilot cases ............................................................................................................................... 21
Table 4-5- Results of delay analysis of all 32 cases ............................................................................................... 29
Table 4-6- Comparison with DAT6 ................................................................................................................................ 30
Table 4-7- Difference days of respective cases in each DAT ............................................................................. 31
Table 5-1- 3 types of concurrent delay in construction ...................................................................................... 32
Table 5-2- Difference result of analysis of concurrency with other path ..................................................... 36
Table 5-3- Difference result of analysis of concurrency on same path ......................................................... 39
Table 5-4- example of proving of impacted days due to quantity increase ............................................... 41
Table 6-1- Comparison of difference results of respective DATs ..................................................................... 43
Table 6-2- Comparison of analysis respective DATs .............................................................................................. 43
Table 6-3- Comparison of required data of respective DATs ............................................................................. 44
Table 6-4 - Comparison of Contract Clause of delay notification ........................................................................ 45
Table 6-5- Summary of delay notification conditions in standard contract ............................................... 46
Table 6-6- Comparison of inclement weather detail level .................................................................................. 48

vi
List of Figures
Figure 1-1- inevitability of dispute in construction industry ................................................................................1
Figure 1-2- Necessity of appropriate claim preparation and assessment ......................................................3
Figure 2-1- Delay type tree ................................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2-2- DAT classification with numbers ............................................................................................................ 12
Figure 2-3- Different view of Client and Contractor about delay responsibility ....................................... 14
Figure 3-1- First hypothesis ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 3-2 Second hypothesis ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 3-3 Philosophy of research ................................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 4-1- A2-B2-C2-D1 case bar charts ................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 4-2- DAT2 analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 4-3- DAT3 analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 4-4- DAT4 analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 4-5- DAT5 analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 4-6- DAT6 analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 5-1- No mitigation and no slowdown (concurrency with other path) ............................................ 34
Figure 5-2- No mitigation but with slowdown (Concurrency with other path)......................................... 35
Figure 5-3- with Mitigation and slowdown (Concurrency with other path) ............................................... 36
Figure 5-4- Excusable delay is caused by being late in confirmation ........................................................... 37
Figure 5-5- Excusable delay is caused by quantity increase and so on. ...................................................... 37
Figure 5-6- Notification of delay (concurrency on same path) ........................................................................ 38
Figure 5-7-No notification of delay (Concurrency on same path) .................................................................. 39
Figure 5-8- Anticipated situation of Concurrency on one activity .................................................................. 40
Figure 5-9- Confined space works ................................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 5-10- Inclement weather analysis example................................................................................................. 42
Figure 7-1- Flowchart relationship understanding DATs and dispute resolution ..................................... 49

vii
1 Introduction
1.1 Background

Dispute in construction industry is inevitable. The construction industry has many characteristics
that cannot be seen in other industries and many problems are caused by them.

First of all, in the production of construction industry, in principle, it is an order-made product

according to the desire of the purchaser or client. It is produced in various design according to the
demand. Therefore, it is not easy to display the contents completely on the drawings unlike the
standardized product, and it is not easy to describe the construction method and the building
materials in the specifications either. Furthermore, it is not easy to concentrate management because
the production site is not constant and lacks continuity and permanence of construction period.
Moreover, it has a character that depends on subcontracting of the basic structure of production.
In addition, it is virtually impossible to fully grasp the geological conditions of parts that cannot be
confirmed directly by the client due to underground construction. Lastly, construction work is usually
done outdoors, so the working conditions depend on uncontrollable adverse weather conditions.

In this way, since the construction contains inherently indeterminate elements that cannot be
avoided, it is not uncommon that the construction situation of the construction cannot be predicted
at first. Parts of the design or specification are found to be insufficient, sometimes there are
differences in the interpretation of contract documents. This is inevitably a potential factor for claims
or disputes on construction projects. Such distinct features do subject construction industry parties
such as client, consultants, contractor, and subcontractor, to an inevitable disputes.

Construction Dispute

Inevitability

Order-made uncontrollable
site always changing various supply chain
various design underground
Time not continue subcontracting system
unique weather

Figure 1-1- inevitability of dispute in construction industry

1
While construction claims or disputes are caused by various reasons, the most serious problem in
most claims is associated with time delay. This dispute is likely to increase. However, it is very
problematic to analyse the construction claim due to its complexity of analysis and pattern of
occurrence. In particular, as the size of individual projects increase, the additional expenses of
construction delays increase at a significant rate. In addition, in the event of construction time delays,
there is a possibility of serious additional costs, such as the cost of subcontractors, and the burden
of Liquidated Damages.

In this case, in order to resolve a dispute related to this additional expense of construction delay, it
is necessary to properly assess and prove the causal relationship between the contractor’s non-
breach of contract and the resulting delay or loss. Furthermore, in order to reasonably resolve the
claim due to time delays in the construction project, the theoretical basis of the solution and the
practical application method should be presented.

2
1.2 Research Rationale

It was reviewed in earlier chapter, the inevitability of the dispute in the construction industry and
the importance of resolving the time dispute.

So, how do people need to deal with the dispute to avoid, minimise or resolve amicably? It is
important to know the causes of delay and to minimize the occurrence of the cause. Moreover, it
is also important to understand the dispute resolution procedure and to select the appropriate
dispute resolution procedure (such as negotiation, mediation, adjudication, arbitration, and litigation)
within a contract or legislative instrument. Furthermore, it is also very important to make good
document to prove the causal relationship between the responsible behaviour or event and resulting
loss or delay so that disputes can be resolved as quickly and amicable as possible.

However, the preparation and analysis of these claims related to time delay is considered to be an
area of expertise. This is because contractual and legal knowledge, ability to use construction
schedule management programs (such as Primavera or MS project) are required. The problem is
that documents for construction time delay are late when it starts to be prepared after construction
delays have occurred. In order to clarify the responsibility for the cause of delay, it should be
approached without hindsight but foresight. Which means the practitioners who deal with this
construction time delay have to be ready to prepare a record, do appropriate action in timely
manner. To do so, knowledge of how to perform construction time analysis is important.

Appropriate claim
Appropriate action to
preparation & Appropriate dispute
avoid and minimise → ←
appropriate assessment resolution procedures
dispute
of extension of time
↓

Resolution of Time
dispute

Figure 1-2- Necessity of appropriate claim preparation and assessment

3
2 Literature Review
In this literature review part, relevant information and knowledge are collected in respect of causes
of delay, type of delay, delay analysis technique, and the delay assessment from variety of sources
such as books, authoritative societies, academic dissertation and journals. In last section, a review
is carried out to establish if there are any issues in practice, which construction industry is able to
improve on next steps.

2.1 Causes of delay in construction

In order to carry out case study of delay analysis, previously surveyed causes of delay are to be
identified.

Table 2-1- Major causes of delays in construction

Author, Year Country Title Major causes of Delay of Construction

(Baldwin, 1971) United Causes of Delay in the - inclement weather
States Construction industry - shortages of labour supply
- subcontracting system
(Arditi, Reasons Turkey Reasons for Delays in - shortages of resources
for Delays in Public Projects in - financial difficulties faced by public
Public Projects Turkey agencies and contractors
in Turkey, - organizational deficiencies
1985) - delays in design work
- frequent changes in orders/design
- considerable additional work
(Okpala, 1988) Nigeria Causes of High Costs - shortages of materials
of Construction in - failure to pay for completed work
Nigeria - poor contract management
(Dlakwa, 1990) Nigeria Reasons for Overrun - delays in payment by agencies to
in Public Sector contractors
Construction Projects - fluctuations in materials, labour and plant
in Nigeria costs
(Mansfield, Nigeria Causes of Delay and - improper financial and payment
1994) Cost Overruns in arrangements
Nigerian Construction - poor contract management
Projects - shortages of materials
- inaccurate cost estimates

4
 - fluctuations in cost
(Semple, 1994) Canada Construction Claims - increases in the scope of the work
and Disputes: Causes - inclement weather
and Cost/Time - restricted access
Overruns
(Assaf, Causes Saudi Causes of Delay in - slow preparation and approval of shop
of Delay in Arabia Large Building drawings
Large Building Construction Projects - delays in payments to contractors
Construction - changes in design/design error
Projects, 1995) - shortages of labour supply
- poor workmanship
(Ogunlana, Thailand Construction Delays in - shortages of materials
1996) a Fast-Growing - changes of design
Economy: Comparing - liaison problems among the contracting
Thailand with Other parties
Economies
(Chan, 1996) Hong Reasons for Delay in - unforeseen ground conditions
Kong Civil Engineering - poor site management and supervision
Projects-The case of - slow decision making by project teams
Hong Kong - client-initiated variations
(Al-Khal, 1999) Saudi Important Causes of - cash flow problems/financial difficulties
Arabia Delay in - difficulties in obtaining permits
Public Utility Projects -“lowest bid wins” system
in Saudi Arabia
(Al-Momani, Jordan Construction Delay: A - poor design
2000) Quantitative Analysis - changes in orders/design
- inclement weather
- unforeseen site conditions
- late deliveries
(Lo, 2006) Hong Construction Delays - inadequate resources
Kong in Hong Kong Civil - unforeseen ground conditions
Engineering Projects - exceptionally low bids
- inexperienced contractor
- work in conflict with existing utilities
- poor site management and supervision
- unrealistic contract duration

5
 (Faridi, 2006) UAE Significant Factors - slow preparation and approval of drawings
Causing - inadequate early planning of the project
Delay in the UAE - slowness of owner’s decision making
Construction Industry - shortage of manpower
- poor site management and supervision
- low productivity of manpower
(Assaf, Causes Saudi Causes of Delay in - change in orders by the owner during
of Delay in Arabia Large construction
Large Construction Projects - delay in progress payment
Construction - ineffective planning and scheduling
Projects, 2006) - shortage of labour
- difficulties in financing on the part of the
contractor
(Sambasivan, Malaysia Causes and effects of - contractor’s improper planning
2007) delays in Malaysian - contractor’s poor site management
construction industry - inadequate contractor experience
- inadequate client’s finance and payments
for completed work
- problems with subcontractors
- shortage in material and labour supply
- equipment availability and failure
- lack of communication between parties
- Mistakes during the construction stage.

It is noted that different countries have different major causes of delay. While under developed
countries or developing countries tend to suffer from non-payment or poor contract management,
developed countries tend to suffer from shortages of labour supply and restricted access.

2.2 Type of delay

Above causes of delay can be classified into the responsible party i.e. consultants, client, contractor,
neutral according to its contractual responsibility. In different way, these delays can be classified
into a few types according to a liability to delay i.e. excusable and non-excusable. Excusable delay
can be further broken down into compensable delay and non-compensable delay. These types of
delay can be shown as below tree diagram and table with relevant contractual implication. In
excusable delay, Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) will not be imposed to contractor whereas

6
in inexcusable delay contractor is to bear LAD. Regarding monetary issues of prolongation cost, in
compensable delay contractor will be entitled to be paid the prolongation cost whereas in non-
compensable delay contractor will not be paid.

Table 2-2- Delay types and its contractual implication

Contractor’s Entitlement to extension of time

Excusable
Condition
Contractor’s entitlement to prolongation cost Inexcusable

Compensable Non-compensable

No Liquidated Liquidated Damages

Contractual results No Liquidated
Damage imposed to imposed to
with respect to LAD Damage
Contractor Contractor
and Prolongation No Prolongation cost
Prolongation cost No Prolongation cost
Cost paid to Contractor
paid to Contractor paid to Contractor

Delays

Inexcusable Excusable

Non-compensable Compensable

Figure 2-1- Delay type tree

7
Below table shows an example of relevant events in JCT contract associated with time extension
and cost compensation which can distinguish above-mentioned three type of delays.

Table 2-3- example of delay type classification in JCT contract

JCT clause
2.29 Rele JCT 4.24
Events Delay type
vant Even Relevant
ts matters

Variation Yes Yes

Compliance with AI related to clause 2.15 - correc

Yes Yes
tion of error of contract document

Compliance with AI related to clause 3.15 - work

Yes Yes
postponement
Excusable a
Compliance with AI related to clause 3.16 - provisi nd compen
Yes Yes
onal sum sable delay
Compliance with AI related to clause 3.22 - antiqui
Yes Yes
ty

Under approximate quantity, actual quantity is unr

Yes Yes
easonably bigger

Act (or omission) of prevention (or default) by Clie

Yes Yes
nt, Consultants

deferment of site possession Yes No

Suspension by Contractor due to none payment Yes No

Works for statutory obligations Yes No

Excusable a
Exceptionally adverse weather Yes No nd non-com
Loss or damage by any of specified perils Yes No pensable de
lay
Civil commotion / threat of terrorism Yes No

Strike of workmen affecting the works Yes No

Statutory power affecting the works Yes No

8
 Force majeure Yes No

Other reason not listed below such as Contractor's

Inexcusable
poor management (planning), shortage or late deliv No No
delay
ery of resources (labour or material or equipment)

2.3 Delay Analysis Techniques (DATs)

So many delay analysis have been introduced by most academic journal or industry authoritative
societies.

Table 2-4 - Research of delay analysis techniques

Author, Year Source Title Delay analysis techniques

Journal Construction delay Global impact technique / Net impact
(Alkass, 1996) analysis techniques technique / Adjusted as-built CPM
technique / But for or collapsing
technique Snapshot technique / Time
impact technique
Journal Dealing with delays in As-planned vs As-built / Collapsing
(Kumaraswam evaluating extensions technique / Global Impact / Net Impact /
y, 2001) of time Adjusted as built critical path method / As
planned impacted program / As built but
for / Window analysis / Snapshot analysis
(SCL, Delay Authoritative Delay and Disruption Time impact analysis
and society Protocol (1st )
Disruption
Protocol 1st,
2001)
(Ockleton, Dissertation Methods of Delay Time impact analysis / Collapsed as-built /
2006) Analysis in Impacted as-planned analysis / Analysis in
Construction windows
Contracts
(Lowsley, Book About Time – Delay As-planned vs as-built / As-planned
2006) analysis in impacted / Collapsed as-built / A
Construction comparison of as-planned impacted and

9
 collapsed as-built / Windows analysis /
Time impact analysis
(Arditi, Journal Selecting a delay As-planned vs as-built / Impacted as-
Selecting a analysis method in planned / Collapsed as-built / Time
delay analysis resolving construction impact method
method in claims
resolving
construction
claims, 2006)
(Ndekugri, Journal Delay Analysis within [Non-CPM based techniques] S curve
2008) Construction Global impact technique / Net impact
Contracting [CPM based techniques] As-planned
Organizations versus as-built / As-planned but fore /
Impacted as-planned / Collapsed as-built
/ Window analysis / Time impact analysis
Journal Comparison of As-planned vs as-built / Global impact
(Kao, 2009) windows-based delay technique / As-planned technique /
analysis methods Impacted as-planned technique / Net
impact technique / Time impact technique
/ But-for isolated delay type technique /
Isolated delay type technique / Snapshot
technique / Windows analysis
(Dayi, 2010) Dissertation Schedule delay Time impact analysis
analysis in
construction projects:
A case study using
time impact analysis
method
Authoritative Forensic Schedule As-planned vs as-built / Window analysis
(AACEI, 2011) society Analysis / Time impact analysis /
Contemporaneous period analysis /
Impacted as-planned / What-if /
Collapsed as-built
Journal Construction delay As-planned vs as-built / Impacted as-
(Braimah, analysis techniques – planned / As-planned but for / Collapsed
2013) a review of as-built / Window analysis

10
 application issues and
improvement needs
Book Delay Analysis in Impacted as-planned / Collapsed as-built
(Keane, 2015) Construction / As-planned versus as-built / Time
Contracts impact analysis
(SCL, Delay Authoritative Delay and Disruption Impacted as-planned / Time impact
and society Protocol (2nd) analysis / Window analysis / Longest path
Disruption analysis / As-planned but for / Collapsed
Protocol 2nd as-built
(draft), 2016)

There are many kinds of Delay Analysis Technique (DAT). In some cases, the different author uses a
different name although the methods are the same. Furthermore, when new methods come out,
new names are given to them. The variety of name make it difficult to figure out exactly what
respective DAT works. Therefore, what is done in this study is to use numbers instead of names.
Following classification into 6 types based on the fundamental concept, the names from DAT1 to
DAT6 are given. Conceptually, they are divided according to whether As-built program is used, As-
planned program is used, and Chronological analysis is carried out or not as shown on below chart.

11
 No Is as-built
program used

Yes

No Is as-planned No Is as-planned
program used ? program used ?

Yes Yes

Chronological Chronological
No analysis? No analysis?

Yes Yes
Never Always
Chronological Chronological
analysis analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 2-2- DAT classification with numbers

The name commonly used in practice of DAT1~6 are shown on below table.

Table 2-5- Common name used in practice

DAT1 DAT2 DAT3 DAT4 DAT5 DAT6

As-planned As-planned Impacted as- As-built but Impacted as Time impact
vs as-built but for planned for built

After study and survey from existing research and sources, it can be found that “Impacted as-built”
method, more commonly called as “Time impacted analysis”, is more reliable method in any cases
(SCL, Delay and Disruption Protocol 1st, 2001). After excluding methods that contain imperfect
condition (such as non-chronological condition, only one party condition, no as-built schedule
condition), only this “Time impacted analysis method” is left.

12
 Table 2-6 - Summary of delay analysis technique

Salient Factors DAT1 DAT2 DAT3 DAT4 DAT5 DAT6

Time Chronological ◆ ◆ ◆
Non-chronological ◆ ◆ ◆
Condition Both Parties ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
One Party only ◆ ◆
Schedule No schedule ◆
As planned ◆ ◆ ◆
As built ◆ ◆ ◆

13
2.4 Delay Assessment

The purpose of the delay assessment is to analyse delay when a delay event occurs, and to further
divide it into inexcusable delay, excusable and compensable delay, excusable and non-compensable
delay. Depending on the outcome, it is also determined whether the contractor is responsible for
the LAD and whether the client is responsible for the LAE.

The contractor would try to catch up and remove the Inexcusable Delay. If contractor is not 100%
catch-up, contractor is responsible for LAD. For the non-compensable part of the excusable delay,
the contractor will not be entitled for the LAE. In addition, for a concurrent delay, like a non-
compensable delay, contractor is not responsible for LAD and client is not responsible for LAE either.
Therefore, a dispute in the Time Claim arises from difference of view between the client and the
contractor, and it is said that reducing the gap is the settlement of the dispute.

Delay

MTG LAD LAE ACC

NN EN EC
Process of Dispute
Employer's Opinion Resolution
MTG LAD
NN EN

Contractor's Opinion
LAE ACC
EN EC

Figure 2-3- Different view of Client and Contractor about delay responsibility

The process of adjusting the date for completion is the issue of a certificate of the revised date.
This is known as granting an extension of time or awarding extension of time, different terminologies
are used in different forms of contract.

14
2.5 Gap to tackle

Table 2-7- Lack of case study of delay analysis method with complex issues

Basic concept of delay analysis

Complex issues
Previous study method
case study explanation case study explanation
(Alkass, 1996) √

(Kumaraswamy, 2001) √
(SCL, Delay and
Disruption Protocol √ √
1st, 2001)
(Ockleton, 2006) √ √

Lack of visual case study

(Lowsley, 2006) √ √

(Arditi, 2006) √

(Ndekugri, 2008) √ √

(Kao, 2009) √

(Dayi, 2010) √ √

(AACEI, 2011) √ √

(Braimah, 2013) √ √

(Keane, 2015) √ √
(SCL, Delay and
Disruption Protocol √ √
2nd (draft), 2016)

The Gap that is identified from the literature review is that there is no quantitative analysis of how
much the DAT1~6 differs. There is also very little case study dealing with complex issues. Although
most of the journal or academic resources agreed about the seriousness of these issues, none of
them provided clear solution or guide. The lack of guide or solution can make the practitioners in
industry practice tend to rely on the delay analysis specialists after delay dispute occur. To tackle
this gap, quantitative analysis of difference of result of each DAT is done. Furthermore, a case study
that deals with complex cases such as mitigation, slowdown, and concurrent delay is conducted.
Case study of delay analysis methods dealing with above-said complex issues could contribute to
reduction of occurrence of unnecessary delay dispute in construction industry.

15
3 Objective and Methodology
3.1 Hypothesis

In this paper, two hypotheses have been made in order to make a new approach and attempt to
DAT. First, it is assumed that each DAT will have different results for the same as-plan program,
same as-built program, and same excusable delay event because of different interpretation of float
ownership. The difference will be examined throughout the comparison with the most reasonable
and accurate method, DAT6. It is assumed that the difference of expectation of results will influence
the behaviour of delay analysis practitioner.

• Result of Excusable Delay analysed by DAT_i = R_i

• If R_6 > [R_1~R_5], DAT6 Results would be more advantageous to Contractor.
• If R_6 < [R_1~R_5], DAT6 Results would be more advantageous to Client.

Same as-planned program

DAT1 ~ DAT6 What make it
Same as-built program → →
Different Results different?
Same excusable delay event

Figure 3-1- First hypothesis

In respect of the second hypothesis, when same situation is analysed by using same methods, DAT6,
it is assumed that there can be some cases where the same as-plan program / as-built program /
delay event may have different results depending on the situation such as mitigation / slowdown.
In other words, with the existing DATs 1~6, complex situations such as mitigation / slowdown cannot
be assessed properly or absolutely unless any other measures are taken into account. Finally, it is
assumed that there would be something that would make the situation to be assessed exactly.

Same as-planned program

Same as-built program → → What can make it exact
Different Results
Same excusable delay event assessment?
Same DAT6 method

Figure 3-2 Second hypothesis

The process of approaching the confirmation of this first hypothesis would help to understand DAT,
and ultimately it would be a positive contribution to resolving disputes in the construction industry.

16
3.2 Research Objective

The first objective of this research is to calculate the difference in the results of each DAT as a
quantitative measure. Each DAT has a different Float ownership interpretation. If pilot cases are
created tendentiously which are favourable to one particular DAT, the result can be distorted and
cannot reflect actual nature of each DAT. Therefore, the pilot case should be based on objective
criteria as much as possible.

Furthermore, the computed result does not end simply to make an arithmetic comparison. It moves
on to next goal to have a look back at the difference in float ownership, why it happened. So, it
needs to look at the meaning of how the contractor and the client would approach different point
of view of respective DAT. From that meaning, there will be a time to think about the conditions for
the most appropriate DAT pursued in the current standard contract form the last discussion part.

The second objective of this research is to show cases where different results can be found in the
same DAT applying to a complex case such as mitigation, slowdown and concurrent delay, which
can be expected to occur. If there are different results with the same DAT in the same situation,
then it is necessary to keep track of what is needed to do the accurate analysis in real practice.
Lastly, in the last discussion part, there will be a time to think about the necessary elements which
enable the most accurate analysis, which can expedite the process of time dispute resolution.

17
3.3 Methodology

This paper approaches each of the above two purposes from different perspectives.

First, the first part of research deals with the comparison of the difference between DAT1~6. This
will be conducted quantitatively and objectively since it is focusing on to reveal a law like
generalisation and reducing phenomena to simplest elements during analysis, which method has
objective nature of positivism. This generalized quantitative expectation values are calculated
through analysis of several virtual pilot cases made from several criteria that can distinguish and
characterise the situation objectively through inductive inference. In this first part of research, 32
pilot cases were created for the virtual pilot study based on the salient four criteria. So, after
analysing each case with DAT1~6 respectively, comparison is performed to examine how it differs.

Of course, it would not be correct to believe unconditionally that it is absolute and always correct.
This is because the value may change if the case against the generalized conclusion is increased to
analytical sample which is the limitation of inductive inference. However, by observing different
expectation of results of respective DATs according to the float ownership in the process of
quantitatively analysing, this difference can be reference that helps to understand the DAT.

For the second research, in order to realise complicated situation such as mitigation and/or
slowdown. It is attempted to take into account all possible actual cases which method has subjective
nature of interpretivism. The concurrent delay was divided into three types. It is attempted to cover
all possible situation which could actually occur. DAT6 was used for analysis and an example of
actual Case was found and introduced if DAT6 method is not appropriate to analyse.

In conclusion, both the first and the second part of research were mixed with objective and
subjective approaches according to the objective to be reached. This is because a pragmatic attitude
was taken to find the most appropriate method according to the question and purpose.

First Part Second Part

Law-like generlisation + Actual case study
Objective Subjective
Positivism Interpretivism

Pragmatism

Figure 3-3 Philosophy of research

18
4 Analysis of matrix of pilot cases
4.1 Criteria for 32 pilot cases

First, it is assumed that there is no time reduction before the contract end date when creating the
pilot case. This is because the contractor does not complete the construction early without receiving
the acceleration compensation, and the client or architect (or contract administrator) cannot reduce
contract period through the VO, especially through the Omission. In general, Omission VO involves
negative amount variation and is not positive like acceleration compensation.

In the case of FIDIC, there is an extension of time provision, but there is no reduction of time
provision. In the case of JCT, the term "reduction in time" in Clause 2.28.3.2 in Adjustment of time
is valid only in the case of Clause 2.28.4 or Clause 2.28.5, i.e. to adjust the prolonged time of
Extension of time to the adequate level. And Clause 2.28.6.3 clearly says that the contract completion
date cannot be advanced. From the wording in this clause it is clear that the architect cannot reduce
the contract period, irrespective of how many omissions he issues. (KnowlesRoger, 2012) Completion
Date does not come forward (earlier) with a "negative" compensation event.

Therefore, it has been seen that there is no case where early completion occurs when setting up
Pilot cases.

Table 4-1- Reduction of Time condition in JCT & FIDIC

JCT Clause 2.28.3.2 The Architect/contract Administrator shall in the decision

state (in the case of a decision under clause 2.28.4 or 2.28.5)
the reduction in time that he has attributed to each Relevant
Omission.

JCT Clause 2.28.6.3 Provided always that no decision Architect/Contract

Administrator under clause 2.28.4 or 2.28.5.2 shall fix a
Completion Date for the Works or any Section earlier than
the relevant Date for Completion.

FIDIC No provision for reduction in time

A total of 32 pilot cases were defined in consideration of the following four criteria.

19
 Table 4-2- Four Criteria for 32 pilot cases

A1 If there is no excusable delay, project is not delayed.

A2 Although there is no excusable delay, project is delayed.

B1 According to as-built record, critical path is not changed

B2 According to as-built record, critical path is changed

C1 Delay both 1/2 happen on AB path

C2 Delay both 1/2 happen on CD path

C3 Delay 1 happens on AB path & Delay 2 happens on CD path

C4 Delay 1 happens on CD path & Delay 2 happens on AB path

D1 Early Activity do not use Float

D2 Early Activity use Float

Each pilot case consists of four activities as shown in the table below. Since we should also consider
the change of critical path in multiple paths, two paths were constructed. In the original as-plan
program, the AB path is critical path.

Table 4-3- Activity definition of pilot case

Activity Predecessor Duration

A - 3
B A 5
C - 4
D C 3

The 32 defined pilot cases are represented by the following 2x2x4x2 matrix. Blue bar represents an
as-plan program, yellow bar represents an as-built program, and green bar represents an excusable
delay event. There are two delay events in every case, and depending on the four criteria, the final
delay impact varies from 2 days to 5 days. We will analyse how the responsibility for this final
delayed delay is determined in next chapter.

20
 Table 4-4- Matrix of 32 pilot cases

Case C1 CaseC2 Case C3 Case C4

Results
ACC EC1 EC2 EC CC NN MTG ACC EC1 EC2 EC CC NN MTG ACC EC1 EC2 EC CC NN MTG ACC EC1 EC2 EC CC NN MTG
DAT1 A 1 2 3 4 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 A 1 2
1 1
DAT2 B B B B
2 2
Case DAT3
B1 DAT4 C C
1
C C
1
DAT5 D D
2
D
2
D

Case DAT6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A1 DAT1 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 4 A 1 2 A 1 2
1 1
DAT2 B B B B
2 2
Case DAT3
B2 DAT4 C C
1
C C
1
DAT5 D D
2
D
2
D

Case DAT6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

D1 DAT1 A 1 2 3 4 5 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3
1 1
DAT2 B B B B
2 2
Case DAT3
B1 DAT4 C C
1
C C
1
DAT5 D D
2
D
2
D

Case DAT6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

A2 DAT1 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 4 5 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3
1 1
DAT2 B B B B
2 2
Case DAT3
B2 DAT4 C C
1
C C
1
DAT5 D D
2
D
2
D

DAT6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

DAT1 A 1 2 3 4 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 A 1 2
1 1
DAT2 B B B B
2 2
Case DAT3
B1 DAT4 C C
1
C C
1
DAT5 D D
2
D
2
D

Case DAT6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A1 DAT1 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 4 A 1 2 A 1 2
1 1
DAT2 B B B B
2 2
Case DAT3
B2 DAT4 C C
1
C C
1
DAT5 D D
2
D
2
D

Case DAT6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

D2 DAT1 A 1 2 3 4 5 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3
1 1
DAT2 B B B B
2 2
Case DAT3
B1 DAT4 C C
1
C C
1
DAT5 D D
2
D
2
D

Case DAT6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

A2 DAT1 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 4 5 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3
1 1
DAT2 B B B B
2 2
Case DAT3
B2 DAT4 C C
1
C C
1
DAT5 D D
2
D
2
D

DAT6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

21
4.2 Delay analysis of A2-B2-C2-D1 case using DAT1~6

In this chapter, the delay responsibility is analysed using the Delay Analysis Technique from DAT1
to DAT6 in the A2-B2-C2-D1 case.

4.2.1 DAT1

This is DAT1. It simply adds the days of each Delay event and compares them with the Project Delay
date. If they are the same, there is no inexcusable delay or acceleration. If the delay days are bigger,
the difference is inexcusable delay. In this case, the result is 4-day excusable delay & 1-day
inexcusable delay.

• Delay event [1] = 2 days

• Delay event [2] = 2 days
• Total days of Excusable delay event = 4 days
• Total project delay = 5 days
• Since project delay is bigger 1 day than total excusable delay events days, the difference is
inexcusable delay.

A 1 2 3 4 5

C
1
D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Figure 4-1- A2-B2-C2-D1 case bar charts

22
4.2.2 DAT2

This is DAT2. It is a way to insert all excusable delays into the as-plan program and compare them
to the state before the insertion.

A A 1 2 3
B B

C C 1
D D 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
As-plan program without delay events As-plan program with delay events
Figure 4-2- DAT2 analysis

• Time impact without Delay events = 0 days (①)

• Time impact with Delay events = 3 days (②)
• Impacted day = 3 days (=3 days (②) – 0 days (①))
• Total project delay = 5 days

Here, project delay days are 5 days and impact days are 3 days. Since project delay is bigger, 2 day
than total excusable delay events days, the difference is inexcusable delay. Therefore, the result is
3day excusable delay & 2-day inexcusable delay.

23
4.2.3 DAT3

Next is DAT3. Basically, it is only a chorological analysis version of DAT2, and the whole delay days
are the same of DAT2. However, unlike DAT2, it can calculate the number of days of impact for each
Event.

A A 1
B B

C C 1
D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Snap shot 1 Snap shot 2
Before delay event occurs When [1] delay event occurs
A 1 2 3
B

C 1
D 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Snap shot 3
When [2] delay event occurs
Figure 4-3- DAT3 analysis

• Time impact before delay event occurs = 0 days

• Time impact when [1] Delay events occurs = 1 days (①)
• Time impact when [2] Delay events occurs = 2 days (②)
• Total project delay = 5 days

Since project delay is bigger 2 day than total excusable delay events days, the difference is
inexcusable delay. The 3 days excusable delay is analysed as 1 day of [1] events (①) and 2 days of
[2] events (②).

24
4.2.4 DAT4

Next is DAT4. The method is the same as DAT2, except that As-built program is used instead of As-
plan program. So, if there is no Delay event, it can be seen there is 1-day delay, and if all Delay
events are in place, a total of 5 days Delay is observed.

A 1 A 1 2 3 4 5
B B

C C 1
D D 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
As-built program without delay events As-built program with delay events
Figure 4-4- DAT4 analysis

• Time impact without Delay events = 1 days (①)

• Time impact with Delay events = 5 days (②)
• Impacted day = 4 days (=5 days (②) – 1 days (①))
• Total project delay = 5 days

Here project delay days are 5 days and impact days are 4 days. Since project delay is bigger 1 day
than total excusable delay events days, the difference is inexcusable delay. Therefore, the result is
4day excusable delay & 1 day inexcusable delay.

25
4.2.5 DAT5

Next is DAT5. Basically, it is only a chorological analysis version of DAT4, and the whole delay days
are the same of DAT4. However, unlike DAT4, it can calculate the number of days of impact for each
Event.

A 1 A 1 2 3
B B

C C 1
D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Snap shot 1 Snap shot 2
Before delay event occurs When [1] delay event occurs
A 1 2 3 4 5
B

C 1
D 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Snap shot 3
When [2] delay event occurs
Figure 4-5- DAT5 analysis

• Time impact before delay event occurs = 1 days

• Time impact when [1] Delay events occurs = 2 days (①)
• Time impact when [2] Delay events occurs = 2 days (②)
• Total project delay = 5 days

The result is 4day excusable delay & 1-day inexcusable delay. The 4 days excusable delay is analysed
as 2 days of [1] events (①) and 2 days of [2] events (②).

26
4.2.6 DAT6

Finally, this is DAT6. This is a method of using an as-built program for the past of analysis and using
an as-planned program for the future of that point. Then, it performs chorological analysis like DAT3
and DAT5.

A 1 A 1

B B

C C
1 1
D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Snap shot 1 Snap shot 1
When [A] activity is done When [1] delay event done
A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 4 5

B B

C C
1 1
D D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Snap shot 3 Snap shot4
Before [2] delay event occurs When [2] delay events done
Figure 4-6- DAT6 analysis

• Time impact when [A] activity is done = 1 days

• Time impact when [1] Delay events occurs = 0 days (①)
• Time impact before [2] Delay events occurs = 2 days (②)
• Time impact when [2] Delay events occurs = 2 days (③)
• Total project delay = 5 days

27
The result is 2 day excusable delay & 3 day inexcusable delay. The 2 days excusable delay is analysed
as 0 day of [1] events (①) and 2 days of [2] events (②).

4.2.7 Result summary for A2-B2-C2-D1 case

The results of analysis from DAT1 to DAT6 in the A2-B2-C2-D1 case are summarized in the table
below.

CaseC2
Results
ACC EC1 EC2 EC NN MTG DL
DAT1 2 2 4 1 5
DAT2 N/A N/A 3 2 5
Case Case Case DAT3 1 2 3 2 5
D1 A2 B2 DAT4 N/A N/A 4 1 5
DAT5 2 2 4 1 5
DAT6 2 2 3 5

28
4.3 Delay analysis of remaining 31 pilot cases

In this way, the remaining 31 cases were analysed. This is a result table. A detailed analysis process
is attached to the appendices.

Table 4-5- Results of delay analysis of all 32 cases

Case C1 CaseC2 Case C3 Case C4

Results
ACC EC NN MTG ACC EC NN MTG ACC EC NN MTG ACC EC CC NN MTG
DAT1 4 -1 4 -2 4 -2 4
DAT2 4 3 2 2
Case DAT3 4 3 2 2
B1 DAT4 4 3 2 2
DAT5 4 3 2 2
Case DAT6 4 1 -1 2 2 -1 2 1 -1 1 1 1 -1
A1 DAT1 -1 4 4 -2 4 -2 4
DAT2 -1 4 3 1 2 2
Case DAT3 -1 4 3 1 2 2
B2 DAT4 3 4 2 2
DAT5 3 4 2 2
Case DAT6 -1 4 1 -1 2 2 -1 3 1 -1 2
D1 DAT1 4 1 -1 4 -1 4 -1 4
DAT2 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
Case DAT3 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
B1 DAT4 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
DAT5 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Case DAT6 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
A2 DAT1 -1 4 4 1 -1 4 -1 4
DAT2 -1 4 3 2 2 1 2 1
Case DAT3 -1 4 3 2 2 1 2 1
B2 DAT4 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1
DAT5 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1
DAT6 -1 4 1 -1 2 3 -1 4 1 -1 3
DAT1 4 -1 4 -2 4 -2 4
DAT2 4 3 2 2
Case DAT3 4 3 2 2
B1 DAT4 4 3 2 2
DAT5 4 3 2 2
Case DAT6 4 1 -1 -1 3 1 2 1 -1 2 1 -1
A1 DAT1 -1 4 4 -2 4 -2 4
DAT2 -1 4 3 1 2 2
Case DAT3 -1 4 3 1 2 2
B2 DAT4 3 4 2 2
DAT5 3 4 2 2
Case DAT6 -1 4 1 -1 3 1 -1 3 1 -1 1 1
D2 DAT1 4 1 -1 4 -1 4 -1 4
DAT2 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
Case DAT3 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
B1 DAT4 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
DAT5 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Case DAT6 4 1 -1 3 1 2 1 3 1 -1
A2 DAT1 -1 4 4 1 -1 4 -1 4
DAT2 -1 4 3 2 2 1 2 1
Case DAT3 -1 4 3 2 2 1 2 1
B2 DAT4 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1
DAT5 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1
DAT6 -1 4 1 -1 3 2 -1 4 1 -1 1 2

29
The comparison with DAT6 were made. This is because it is advised DAT6 is the most fair and
reasonable method according to the construction law society. Each colour represents the degree of
difference with DAT6. Blue is advantageous for Contractor because excusable delay is more than
DAT6, and Brown is advantageous for Client because inexcusable delay is more than DAT6. Before
comparison, the acceleration and mitigation are added to excusable and inexcusable delay.

Table 4-6- Comparison with DAT6

Case C1 CaseC2 Case C3 Case C4

Results
ACC EC NN MTG ACC EC NN MTG ACC EC NN MTG ACC EC CC NN MTG
DAT1 4 3 2 2 3NN
DAT2 4 3 2 2 2NN
Case DAT3 4 3 2 2 1NN
B1 DAT4 4 3 2 2 0
DAT5 4 3 2 2 0.5EC
Case DAT6 4 2 1 2 1 1 1EC
A1 DAT1 3 4 2 2 2EC
DAT2 3 3 1 2 2 3EC
Case DAT3 3 3 1 2 2
B2 DAT4 3 4 2 2
DAT5 3 4 2 2
Case DAT6 3 2 2 3 2
D1 DAT1 4 1 3 3 3
DAT2 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
Case DAT3 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
B1 DAT4 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
DAT5 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Case DAT6 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
A2 DAT1 3 4 1 3 3
DAT2 3 3 2 2 1 2 1
Case DAT3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1
B2 DAT4 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1
DAT5 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1
DAT6 3 2 3 3 3
DAT1 4 3 2 2
DAT2 4 3 2 2
Case DAT3 4 3 2 2
B1 DAT4 4 3 2 2
DAT5 4 3 2 2
Case DAT6 4 2 1 2 2
A1 DAT1 3 4 2 2
DAT2 3 3 1 2 2
Case DAT3 3 3 1 2 2
B2 DAT4 3 4 2 2
DAT5 3 4 2 2
Case DAT6 3 3 1 2 1 1
D2 DAT1 4 1 3 3 3
DAT2 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
Case DAT3 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
B1 DAT4 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
DAT5 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Case DAT6 4 1 2 1 2 1 3
A2 DAT1 3 4 1 3 3
DAT2 3 3 2 2 1 2 1
Case DAT3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1
B2 DAT4 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1
DAT5 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1
DAT6 3 3 2 3 1 2

30
4.4 Expectation calculation

Table 4-7- Difference days of respective cases in each DAT

Cases DAT1 DAT2 DAT3 DAT4 DAT5 DAT6

D1 A1 B1 C1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C2 1 1 1 1 1 0
C3 0 0 0 0 0 0
C4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0
B2 C1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C2 2 1 1 2 2 0
C3 0 0 0 0 0 0
C4 2 2 2 2 2 0
A2 B3 C1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C2 1 1 1 0 0 0
C3 1 0 0 0 0 0
C4 1 0 0 0 0 0
B4 C1 0 0 0 -1 -1 0
C2 -2 -1 -1 -2 -2 0
C3 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0
C4 3 2 2 2 2 0
D2 A1 B1 C1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C2 1 1 1 1 1 0
C3 0 0 0 0 0 0
C4 0 0 0 0 0 0
B2 C1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C2 1 0 0 1 1 0
C3 0 0 0 0 0 0
C4 1 1 1 1 1 0
A2 B3 C1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C2 1 1 1 0 0 0
C3 1 0 0 0 0 0
C4 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0
B4 C1 0 0 0 -1 -1 0
C2 1 0 0 1 1 0
C3 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0
C4 2 1 1 1 1 0
Average of respective DAT 0.55 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.00
Average of all 0.23

This is the analysis result. The total number of data is 192, the average of result difference between
DAT6 and DAT1 is 0.55 day, between DAT6 and DAT2/3 is 0.23 day, between DAT6 and DAT 4/5 is
0.17 day. And the total average of result difference between DAT6 and respective DAT is 0.23 day.

31
5 Case studies – Concurrent Delay
In Wells v Army and Navy Co-operative Society (1903) and Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd
v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd (1999,) it was stated that “the fact that delay has been
caused by matters for which the contractor is responsible will not deprive the contractor of his right
to claim an extension of time for delay caused by a relevant event”. A great amount of confusion
and befuddled thinking has been experienced by judges in trying to decipher the effect in terms of
additional time and cost entitlements under the standard forms of contract where concurrent delays
have taken place. Does ‘concurrent’ refer to delays which start and finish on the same dates, or
does it provide for some element of overlap? Do different rules apply in respect of extension of
time entitlements from additional cost claims which arise from concurrent delays? (KnowlesRoger,
2012)

To avoid confusion with these questions, efforts were made to include all possible cases of
concurrent delays in this dissertation. As mentioned in Methodology, we will talk about three cases
as below. The first case is concurrent with the works of another path, the second case is concurrent
with other activity in same path, and the last case is concurrent in one activity.

Table 5-1- 3 types of concurrent delay in construction

A 1 2 A 1 2 A 1 2

B B B
EC EC EC

C C C

D D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Concurrency with other paths Concurrency within same path Concurrency on same activity

If it is concurrent with other paths, the excusable delay and inexcusable delay must occur at the
same time. In this case, not only prolongation due to quantity increase, but also late start cases by
late confirmation can be applied. If activity occurs immediately before or after a path in same path,
prolongation due to quantity increase is not applied and it is applicable only to late start case by
late confirmation. If concurrent delay occurs in one activity, the case of late confirmation is not

32
applied and it is applicable only to the prolongation due to the increase in quantity.

33
5.1 Concurrency with other path

The first case is the simultaneous delay with the inexcusable delay of the excusable delay in other
paths. In this case it is important to take into account the cases of mitigation and slowdown. Analysis
will be performed using DAT6 each scenario i.e. one is considering mitigation and slowdown and
another is without consideration of mitigation and slowdown.

If the project is delayed by the inexcusable delay without excusable delay, and the float is no longer
available and the final construction date is exceeded, the contractor may issue a revised program
through the mitigation. This is a contractual obligation of the contractor to be best endeavoured.
In this case, if the mitigation program is not notified and contractor fails to recognise the excusable
delay at that point and only identifies the delay after works are completed as hindsight, only
retrospective analysis is performed as below.

A 1 A 1 A 1 2

B B B
L L

C C C

D D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Snap shot 1 Snap shot2 Snap shot 3
Before B & D works start Before excusable delay event When all works are done
occurs
Figure 5-1- No mitigation and no slowdown (concurrency with other path)

• Time impact before delay happen = 1 days (①)

• Time impact when Delay events occurs = 1 days (②) – concurrent delay with D work.
• Total project delay = 2 days

The result is 1 day excusable delay (②) & 1 day concurrent delay (①).

34
A different situation is considered. If the project is delayed by the inexcusable delay without
excusable delay, and the float is no longer available and the final construction date is exceeded, the
contractor may issue a revised program through the mitigation. At this time if the mitigation
program is not notified but when excusable delay occurs, contractor successfully notified that impact
within contractually allowed time, the delay is analysed as below.

A 1 A 1 2 A 1 2

B B B
L L

C C C

D D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Snap shot 1 Snap shot2 Snap shot 3
Before delay event occurs When excusable delay event When all works are done
occurs
Figure 5-2- No mitigation but with slowdown (Concurrency with other path)

• Time impact before delay happen = 1 days (①)

• Time impact when Delay events occurs = 1 days (②)
• Time impact when all works are done = 0 days
• Total project delay = 2 days

The result is 1 day excusable delay (②) & 1 day inexcusable delay (①).

35
However, if the project is delayed by the culpable delay without the inexcusable reason and float
disappears and the final construction deadline is likely to be exceeded, then if the mitigation
program is notified in timely manner, it can be analysed as below.

A A 1 2 A 1 2

B B B
L L

C C C

D D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Snap shot 1 Snap shot2 Snap shot 3
Before delay event occurs When excusable delay event When all works are done
occurs
Figure 5-3- with Mitigation and slowdown (Concurrency with other path)

• Time impact before delay happen = 0 days (①)

• Time impact when Delay events occurs = 2 days (②)
• Time impact when all works are done = 0 days
• Total project delay = 2 days

The result is 2-day excusable delay (②) and there is no inexcusable delay attributable to contractor.

The different results of analysis of respective situations of concurrent delay with other paths are
tabulated in below. These results explain that the situation of same as-plan program and same as-
built duration and same delay events can be analysed differently depending on its notification
conditions.

Table 5-2- Difference result of analysis of concurrency with other path

Delay &
Mitigation Inexcusable
Slowdown Excusable delay Concurrent delay
Notification delay
notification
No No 1 1
No Yes 1 1
Yes Yes 2

36
5.2 Concurrency On same path

The second case is the concurrent delay that occurs within one path. This is related to late decision.
If this is related to the quantity increase not a late decision, it is a serial not a parallel relation with
the delay of the predecessor works. As shown in the picture below, if excusable delay is caused by
a late decision of client, it appears like prolongation but in reality, it is not a prolonged physical
work but a late start causing an idle time between two activities. This is different from the case
where the excusable delay is an increase in quantity as shown in the figure below. This is because
there is no idle time.

A 1 2 A 1 2
Y
B B
EC X

Figure 5-4- Excusable delay is caused by being late in confirmation

A 1 2

B
EC

Figure 5-5- Excusable delay is caused by quantity increase and so on.

Late confirmation will be discussed in more detail. Before the physical work starts, the design is to
be confirmed so that the procurement (Figure indicates it as [X]) can proceed. And if there is no
more float of design works by client in the critical path, then the contractor would notify contract
administrator of design non-confirmation that the delay has begun. After the design has been
confirmed, it means the cause of delay is ceased. Contractor would notify contract administrator
how many days are finally delayed. In this case, contractor would need to perform intentional
slowdown of A task to prevent idle time, in which case the As-built record will prolonged.

37
Next, let us analyse using DAT6 in the case of late confirmation.

A 1 2 A 1 2

[X] B [X] B
L

C C

D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Snap shot 1 Snap shot 2
Design has to be confirmed in order to start As design confirmation is delay on [L]
procurement [X] to start physical work [B] duration, there is 2 days impact.
works in time.
A 1 2 A 1 2

[X] B [X] B
D

C C

D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Snap shot 3 Snap shot 4
In order to avoid idling situation of [A] works, All works are done.
the intentional slowdown was made on [A]
works.
Figure 5-6- Notification of delay (concurrency on same path)

• Time impact when [L] happen = 2 days

• Time impact when all works are done = 0 days
• Total project delay = 2 days

The result is 2 day excusable delay.

38
When analysing without consideration of notification, it is as follows.

A 1 2 A 1 2

B B

C C

D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Snap shot 1 Snap shot 2
When [A] work done When all works done
Figure 5-7-No notification of delay (Concurrency on same path)

• Time impact when [A] works done = 2 days

• Time impact when all works are done = 0 days
• Total project delay = 2 days

The result is 2-day inexcusable delay. After contractor failing to notify at that delay time, contractor
may assert that there is client responsible delay if the delay is detected after all works is done.
Throughout retrospective analysis contractor may assert that there was concurrent delay with [A]
works and late decision. If there is no actual delay on design, contractor would not be entitled for
any extension of time.

The different results of analysis of respective situations of concurrent delay with other paths are
tabulated in below. These results explain that the situation of same as-plan program and same as-
built duration and same delay events can be analysed differently depending on its notification
conditions.

Table 5-3- Difference result of analysis of concurrency on same path

Delay &
Inexcusable
Excusable delay Slowdown Excusable delay Concurrent delay
delay
notification
No No 2
Yes No 2
Yes Yes 2

39
5.3 Concurrency on one activity

Finally, let us look at a third case, concurrency on one Activity.

In this case, the issue is to prove how many days were impacted by inexcusable reason such as
quantity increase, inclement weather. What is more complicated here is that when the contractor’s
mitigation or culpable delay occurs together, it is very difficult to determine the impacted day by
simply referring to the as-built record.

DAT1 ~ 6 method only can be used after the quantum of this impact is determined or proved.

As shown in the picture below, it would be ideal to have a quantity increase without contractor's
catch-up or culpable delay, but this is not a case in real practice.

Observed fact is that as-built

duration of [B] works is
prolonged

A
A A

B
B B
P
P P
Quantity increase with
Quantity increase with
contractor’s mitigation Quantity increase only.
contractor’s culpable delay.
(catch up)

Figure 5-8- Anticipated situation of Concurrency on one activity

If it was not a quantity increase but late confirmation, concurrency by contractor mitigation or
culpable delay would not occur. This is because in the case of late confirmation, it is only a change
of the starting point without changing the original duration. Therefore, this concurrency in one
activity is only the case in the case of prolongation.

40
Also, an increase in quantity does not always lead to an increase in duration. To lead to an increase
in duration, it must be proven that keep duration is not possible due to being unable to increase
resources such as labour or equipment.

The following example is to demonstrate the duration prolongation due to an increase in the
quantity.

In respect of RC beam installation, a number of workers are not able to carry out the respective
activities installing steel bar, mechanical couplers and tendon of post-tension at the confined space
simultaneously. Accordingly, those works are likely to be executed in sequential rather than parallel
by the limited number of workers as illustrated below.

Rebar at Coupler Post Tension

Saturated Condition in Confined Space

Saturated Condition in Confined Space
-> Unable to Increase Worker
-> Unable to Increase Worker

Bottom Rebar Top and Strip Bar

Saturated Condition in Confined Space Saturated Condition in Confined Space

-> Unable to Increase Worker -> Unable to Increase Worker

Figure 5-9- Confined space works

The prolonged duration should be proven based on the data on the number of workers who can
work in confined spaces and the daily amount of work that can be done by one worker. Then, if
there are several parts of the site, it needs to explain whether the works progresses simultaneously
or sequentially, and explain each reason.

Table 5-4- example of proving of impacted days due to quantity increase

Tender Drawing Construction Drawing Variance

No. of
Workers x No. of Workers x
No of Days to No of Days to Additional No of
Item Description Unit Daily output/ Daily output/
Quantity complete the Quantity complete the Days for the
Worker = Worker = Total
Item Item item
Total Daily Daily output
output
1 Reinforcement Tonne 0 day 2.62 8 x 0.3 T= 2.4T 1.0 day 1.0 days
2 Coupler Nos 0 day 80 8 x 5 = 40 nos 2.0 day 2.0 day
Total 3.0 days

41
Proving such an impacted duration is also necessary in inclement weather situation. The following
example is to demonstrate the duration prolongation due to the inclement weather of a project.

Figure 5-10- Inclement weather analysis example

42
6 Results and Discussion
6.1 Difference Results

As seen above, DAT1 ~ 6 show different results for the same as-plan program, as-built duration,
and excusable delay event.

Table 6-1- Comparison of difference results of respective DATs

DAT1 DAT2 DAT3 DAT4 DAT5 DAT6

0.55 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.17 0

This shows that this difference comes from the difference of interpreting float ownership. Excusable
delay can use float of none critical path in DAT2/3 whereas float only can be used by excusable
delay after inexcusable delay used in DAT4/5. However, In DAT2/3 excusable delay cannot use new
float due to contractor’s early finishes whereas in DAT4/5, excusable delay can use new float
generated by contractor's early work done. While DAT1~5 show difference favour on either Client
or contractor, DAT6 seems to be the most reasonable method because in this DAT6 float ownership
belong to who use it first. The difference in the results of DAT1 ~ 6 is due to the difference in the
ownership of the float, which is quantitatively analysed.

Furthermore, it is noted that it is possible to analyse complex situations such as mitigation or

slowdown in concurrent delay if timely notification is done by contractor. While DAT1~5 seems to
show

Table 6-2- Comparison of analysis respective DATs

Comparison DAT1 DAT2 DAT3 DAT4 DAT5 DAT6 With

Notification

Critical path effect - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Timing Retrospectivly

Float at none EC can use, after EC can use if it is

- EC can use
Analysis CP Contractor use first used first
Float
ownership New float at CP
EC can use if it is
(by early work - EC cannot use EC can use
used first
done)

Mitigation/Slow down - - - - - - Yes

43
6.2 Different required Data

As seen on aforesaid analysis above, DAT1~5 seems to be more advantageous for contractor than
DAT6. Furthermore, if the contractor actually suffered an excusable delay, it is noted that the
notification in respect of mitigation and slowdown in timely manner in DAT6 could again produce
favourable results.

However, it cannot conclude that using DAT1~5 is more advantageous for contractor. This is because
the client may reject or not accept the result because of the irrationality of the interpretation of
float ownership.

It would be best if DAT6 were used with proper record of the necessary notifications. However, it is
not easy to make all of the following four records (such as as-planned program or revised as-
planned program, as-built program, notification of delay due to inexcusable delay and mitigation
without changing the former project completion date, notification of delay due to excusable delay
and slowdown if necessary) in the real practise perfectly.

Knowing what data is needed to apply the DAT6 that is most appropriate for resolving disputes and
what is needed for analysis will help prepare this data. Although the difficulty of resolving disputes
may be one of the predicament in analysing delay in construction work, the difficulty of resolving
disputes arising from inability of analysis due to insufficient data should be avoided.

Table 6-3- Comparison of required data of respective DATs

Comparison DAT1 DAT2 DAT3 DAT4 DAT5 DAT6 With

Notification

Chronological Analysis ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

As planned schedule ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

Required
As built schedule ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Data

Notification of inexcusable
◆
delay and mitigation

Notification of excusable
◆
delay and slowdown

44
6.3 Notification as condition precedent

Notifications are used to revise As-planned programs in Mitigation and/or Slowdown situations, but
in some cases, they are required to be condition precedent of extension of time claim. This is a
survey of the conditions of the delay notification of some standard contracts. This notification is
enforced by many standard form of contract. This is because having a record of the Notification
helps to resolve the dispute. Therefore, most of the standard of construction contract provides the
relevant conditions as to extension of time in order to make delay claim and defence mechanism
properly to be implemented. Delay analysis method being reviewed, the conditions of contract in
extension of time have to be taken into account together because it provide the requirement of
condition precedent for entitlement to extension of time.

Table 6-4 - Comparison of Contract Clause of delay notification

Contract Clauses Contents

SBC/Q Section 2.27 If and whenever it becomes reasonably apparent that the
progress of the Works or any Section is being or is likely to be
(JCT, 2011) DB Section 2.24
delayed the Contractor shall forthwith give notice to the
Notice by Architect/Contract Administrator of the material
Contractor of delay circumstances, including the cause or causes of the delay, and
to progress shall identify in the notice any event which in his opinion is a
Relevant Event.

Core clause 16.1 The Contractor and the Project Manager give an early warning
Early warning by notifying the other as soon as either becomes aware of any
(NEC3, 2005)
matter which could increase the total of the Prices, delay
Completion, delay meeting a key Date or impair the
performance of the works in use.

Core clause 61.3 If the Contractor does not notify a compensation event within
eight weeks of becoming aware of the event, he is not entitled
Notifying
to a change in the Prices, the Completion Date or a Key Date
compensation
unless the Project Manager should have notified the event to
events
the Contractor but did not.

Clause 8.4 If the Contractor considers himself to be entitled to an

Extension of Time extension of the Time for Completion, the Contractor shall give
(FIDIC, 1999)
for Completion notice to the Engineer in accordance with Sub-Clause 20.1

45
 [Contractor’s Claims].

Clause 20.1 If the Contractor fails to give notice of a claim within such
Contractor’s Claims period of 28 days, the Time for Completion shall not be
extended, the Contractor shall not be entitled to additional
payment, and the Employer shall be discharged from all
liability in connection with the claim.

Clause 4.3.7 Claims If the Contractor wishes to make Claim for an increase in the
for Additional Time Contract Time, written notice as provided herein shall be
(AIA, 2007)
given. The Contractor's Claim shall include an estimate of cost
and of probable effect of delay on progress of the Work. In the
case of a continuing delay only one Claim is necessary.

Clause 4.3.2 Time Claims by either party must be initiated within 21 days after
Limits on Claims occurrence of the event giving rise to such Claim or within 21
days after the claimant first recognizes the condition giving
rise to the Claim, whichever is later. Claims must be initiated
by written notice to the Architect and the other party.

While JCT contract does not stipulate the number of days for notice, FIDIC and NEC3 and AIA contract
strictly impose on Contractor the 28 day and eight weeks and 21 days condition respectively.

However, in practice it is not easy to comply with this time barring condition perfectly. Therefore, it could
be accepted that failure to give notice of delay for extension of time purposes is not usually fatal to an
extension of time claim unless that notice is related to cost claims such as prolongation, or loss and
expense. (Gibson, 2008)

Table 6-5- Summary of delay notification conditions in standard contract

Country UK International US
Contract JCT NEC3 FIDIC AIA
4 weeks 3 weeks
Time bar Not stipulated 8 weeks
(28 days) (21 days)

This time bar condition could eventually make contractor to be more active to prevent delay by diligently
monitoring the project condition, which is contractor’s the most important contractual obligation.

46
6.4 Approaches on Concurrent delay

There are three important approach principles; the Devlin Approach and the burden of proof
approach.

• The Devlin Approach – if a breach of contract is one of two causes of a loss, both causes
co-operating and both of approximately equal efficacy, the breach is sufficient to carry
judgement for the loss.

For example, there were two competing causes of delay which a contractor is entitled for an
extension of time, one a neutral event, such as inclement weather, and the other being a breach
such as late issue of instruction by designer. According to the Devlin Approach, a Contractor would
be entitled to both an extension of time and loss and expenses due to the late issue of instruction.

• The burden of proof approach – If part of the damages is shown to be due to a breach of
contract by the plaintiff, the claimant must show how much of the damage is caused by
breach of contract, failing which he can recover nominal damages only.

For example, a contractor caused a delay having to correct defective work when at the same time
another delay occurs caused by the client. The contractor would have to demonstrate that this loss
was due to the client’s actions and not his own.

There was another approach idea, the dominant cause approach. It means if there are two causes,
the plaintiff will succeed if the they establish that the cause for which the defendant is responsible
is the dominant cause. However, this approach was rejected by the court later. (H Fairweather and
Co Ltd v London Borough of Wandsworth (1987))

47
6.5 Contract condition of inclement weather

What is important in the assessment of delay events associated with inclement weather is to
determine the criterion of how many percent less frequency is.

Contractor may assert that the level of once every five years would be reasonable to constitute an
entitlement of inclement weather delay. However, client may assert that the level of once every
twenty years would be reasonable. If these criteria are not specified in the contract, then it is judged
according to the common practice so that as a result this also can become a potential element of
dispute. The following is a comparison of the criteria for each contract. Unlike other contracts, NEC
provided the level of adverse weather as once every 10 years.

Table 6-6- Comparison of inclement weather detail level

JCT NEC FIDIC

EOT entitlement of
Yes Yes Yes
inclement weather

Stipulation of Level of Less frequently than

Not stipulated Not stipulated
adverse weather once in ten years

48
7 Conclusion
7.1 Limitation

In 32 pilot case study, since it is assumed that each case has same occurrence probability, no
weightage adjustment was made. However, in real practice, the respective case probability is
unknown. Therefore, the quantified figure of each DATs is just reference only to facilitate the
understanding of float ownership concept.

Furthermore, new creative DAT can be introduced after slight change to its analysis. This is why one
DAT has many various number of different names.

In this paper, although it is attempted to generalize the delay analysis technique with a name of
DATs 1~6 to be as comprehensive as possible, in addition to these methods, additional creative
methods could already exist. Anything else not covered in this paper on other methods that may
already exist may be studied in the future research.

7.2 Recommendation

By understanding DAT1 ~ 6, the practitioner will be able to prepare the necessary materials in timely
manner, which will improve the quality of EOT Claim and will ultimately contribute to amicable
settlement of time dispute shown on below flow chart.

Figure 7-1- Flowchart relationship understanding DATs and dispute resolution

49
8 References
AACEI. (2011). Forensic Schedule Analysis. AACE International.

AIA. (2007). AIA Contract. The American Institute of Architects.

Alkass, S. (1996). Construction delay analysis techniques. Construction Management and Economics.

Al-Khal. (1999). Important Causes of Delay in Public Utility Projects in Saudi Arabia. Construction
Management and Economics, 647-655.

Al-Momani. (2000). Construction Delay: A Quantitative Analysis. International Journal of Project

Management, 51-59.

Arditi, D. (1985). Reasons for Delays in Public Projects in Turkey. Construction Management and
Economics, 171-181.

Arditi, D. (2006). Selecting a delay analysis method in resolving construction claims. International
Journal of Project Management, 145-155.

Assaf. (1995). Causes of Delay in Large Building Construction Projects. Journal of Management in
Engineering, ASCE, 45-50.

Assaf. (2006). Causes of Delay in Large Construction Projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 349-357.

Baldwin. (1971). Causes of Delay in the Construction industry. Journal of Construction Division, ASCE,
177-187.

Braimah, N. (2013). Construction delay analysis techniques – a review of application issues and
improvement needs.

Bubshait, A. A. (2004). Management of Concurrent Delay in Construction. Cost Engineering, 22.

Chan. (1996). Reasons for Delay in Civil Engineering Projects - The case of Hong Kong. Hong Kong
Institution of Engineers Transactions, 1-8.

Dayi, S. (2010). Schedule delay analysis in construction projects: A case study using time impact
analysis method (Dissertation). Middle east technical university.

Dlakwa. (1990). Reasons for Overrun in Public Sector Construction Projects in Nigeria. International
Journal of Project Management, 237-241.

50
Faridi. (2006). Significant Factors Causing Delay in the UAE Construction Industry. Construction
Management and Economics, 1167-1176.

FIDIC. (1999). FIDIC RED BOOK. International Federation of Consulting Engineers.

Gibson, R. (2008). Construction Delays – Extension of time and prolongation claims. Routledge.

Iyer, K. (2008). Understanding time delay disputes in construction contracts. International Journal of
Project Management, 174-184.

Jamieson, D. (2011). Concurrent delay in construction. Civil Engineering: Magazine of the south
African Institution of Civil Engineering, 52.

JCT. (2011). The JCT Standard Forms of Building Contract. The Joint Contracts Tribunal.

Kao, C.-K. (2009). Comparison of windows-based delay analysis methods. International Journal of
Project Management, 408-418.

Keane, P. (2015). Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts. Wiley Blackwell.

Knowles, R. (2012). 200 Contractual Problems and their solutions. Wiley-Blackwell.

Kumaraswamy, M. (2001). Dealing with delays in evaluating extensions of time. 17th Annual ARCOM
Conference. Association of Researcher in Construction Management.

Lo. (2006). Construction Delays in Hong Kong Civil Engineering Projects. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 636-649.

Lowsley, S. (2006). About Time - Delay Analysis in Construction. RICS books.

M, T. (1998). Causes of delays in the construction industry in Lebanon. Engineering, Construction

and Architectural Management, 3,252-260.

Mansfield. (1994). Causes of Delay and Cost Overruns in Nigerian Construction Projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 254-260.

Ndekugri, I. (2008). Delay Analysis within Construction Contracting Organizations. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 692-700.

NEC3. (2005). New Engineering Contract 3rd Edition. Instituion of Civil Engineers.

Ockleton, J. P. (2006). Methods of Delay analysis in Construction Contracts (Dissertation). Kingston

University.

51
Odeh, A. M. (2002). Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts.

Ogunlana. (1996). Construction Delays in a Fast-Growing Economy: Comparing Thailand with other
economics. International Journal of Project Management, 37-45.

Okpala. (1988). Causes of high costs of construction in Nigeria. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, ASCE, 233-244.

Sambasivan, M. (2007). Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry. International
Journal of Project Management, 517-526.

SCL. (2001). Delay and Disruption Protocol 1st. The Society of Construction Law.

SCL. (2016). Delay and Disruption Protocol 2nd (draft). The Society of Construction Law.

Semple. (1994). Construction Claims and Disputes: Causes and Cost/Time Overruns. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 785-795.

Tolson, S. (2008). Time bar in construction and global claims. London, UK: Fenwick Elliott
(http://www.fenwickelliott.com).

Vasilyeva-Lyulina, A. (2015). Delay Analysis Methods for Construction Projects: Mathematical

Modelling. Project Advisors International LLC, Kyoto University.

52
9 Appendices
9.1 Flow chart – dispute minimization and settlement

Is risk management
Rermarks
carried out?
Event
Yes No
choice
Identification of
cause of delay as a
Result

Avoid and minimize

the delay

Is it possible to avoid
100% ?
Yes
No
Almost impossible in Delay and cost
However minimized
practise overrun serious

Inexcusable delay
No delay excusable delay
LAD imposed

Not
Compensable
compensable
Refer to concurrent delay flow chart

Negotiation
Settled
Not settled
Mediation
Settled
Not settled
Adjudication
Settled
Not settled
Arbitration
Settled
Not settled
Litigation

Dispute resolved
Concluded

53
9.2 Flow chart – dispute occurrence from concurrent delay

Execute project and keep Rermarks

Able to foresee the future
being aware of likelyhood of Event before delay
delay event?
occurrence of delay event
choice
No Yes
Result
Is it able to be aware
Delay event
of that delay after Event after delay
occurred
occurrence?
No Yes

Was it able to prevent by Is it able to prevent by

some action from client? some action from client?
No Yes

Is it Make notification within Make reminder not to cause

Forcemejure? time bar as per contract delay
No No Yes

Make notification
Was notification made in Does client do action for
within time bar as per
time as per contract? delay prevention?
contract
No Yes No Yes

No. not notified No. notified but

Yes done delay occurred Case close
at all not in time
A Case B Case C Case
Make notification
Concurrency
within time bar as per
dispute
contract
likely to be A case likely to be C case
likely to be B case
Non- Excusable but
Excusable and
excusable. not No delay
compensable
LAD imposed compensable

Acceleration
Negotiation for acceleration
granted?

Yes No

Mitigation with While pursue EOT, do acceleration in No acceleration pursue Acceleration and waive
Contractor's cost case of no entitlement prolongation cost prolongation cost and time

54
9.3 DAT1~6 analysis of 32 cases
9.3.1 Case A1-B1-C1-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 4 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 4 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
no acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 4 days

C
D Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2 day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2 day impact
B 2

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C
D And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 delay events is responsible for 2 day.

55
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 4 days

C
D Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2 day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 days, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 days.
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

56
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
1 mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay
B
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2 day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B
B 2
Therefore, 4 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
delay events is responsible for 2 day.
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

57
9.3.2 Case A1-B1-C2-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 3 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1 day acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 3 days

C 1
D 2 Therefore, 3 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1 day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2 day impact
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events is responsible for 1 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 delay events is responsible for 2 day.

58
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 3 days

C 1
D 2 Therefore, 3 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1 day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day.
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

59
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1 day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay and 1 inexcusable delay.

C And [1] delay events are responsible for 0 day, and
1 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 days.
D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

60
9.3.3 Case A1-B1-C3-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 2 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
2 days acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 2 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day.

61
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 2 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day.
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

62
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2 day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
1 mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay
B
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day
1 impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B
B
Therefore, 2 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
[2] delay events is responsible for 0 day.
D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

63
9.3.4 Case A1-B1-C4-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 2 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
2 days acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 2 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D And [1] delay events is responsible for 1 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 delay events is responsible for 1 day.

64
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 2 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D And [1] delay events is responsible for 1 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 delay events is responsible for 1 day.
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

65
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 Before [2] delay event take place, D activity delay take
place concurrently, there is 1-day impact.  1-day
B
concurrent delay
2

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1day Excusable delay
B
2
Therefore, 1 excusable delay and 1 concurrent delay.
C And [1] delay events is responsible for 0 day, and [2]
1 delay events is responsible for 1 day, and both
D
contractor and client are responsible for 1 day.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

66
9.3.5 Case A1-B2-C1-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 4 days
C
Therefore, 1 excusable delay
D
1 day acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 4 days
However, project delay is only 3 days.
C
D Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 day acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C
D And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 delay events is responsible for 2 day, and 1 day

67
 acceleration by contractor.
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 3 days

C
D Therefore, 3 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C
D And [1] delay events is responsible for 1 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 delay events is responsible for 2 day.
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

68
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 mitigation  (-2) day Inexcusable delay. Since there
B
is only 1-day inexcusable delay, (-1) day is for
mitigation and another (-1) day is for acceleration.
C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B
2
Therefore, 4 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
delay events is responsible for 2 day, and 1 day
D
acceleration. Early 1 inexcusable delay is removed by

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 day mitigation.

69
9.3.6 Case A1-B2-C2-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 4 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 4 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 3 days
However, the project delay = 4 days
C 1
D 2 Therefore, 3 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B However, the project delay = 4 days
Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 days, and 1 day
is inexcusable delay.

70
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 4 days
Since project delay is 4 days, this delay is all
C 1
D 2 attributable to excusable delay.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 delay events is responsible for 2 day.
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

71
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay and 2 inexcusable delay.

C And [1] delay events is responsible for 0 day, and [2]
1 delay events is responsible for 2 day.
D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

72
9.3.7 Case A1-B2-C3-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 2 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
2 days acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 2 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C
D 2 And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 delay events is responsible for 0 day.

73
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 2 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events is responsible for 1 day.
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

74
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay & 1-day
B
acceleration

D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
1 impact.  1-day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay.

C And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
[2] delay events is responsible for 1 day, and 1 day
D
acceleration. 1 excusable delay is removed by 1-day
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 mitigation.

75
9.3.8 Case A1-B2-C4-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 2 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
2 days acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 2 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events are responsible for 1 day.

76
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 2 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 delay events is responsible for 0 day.
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

77
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B
2

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 2 When D work is done, 1-day impact  1-day
inexcusable delay
B
2
Therefore, 0 excusable delay and 2 inexcusable delay.
C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

78
9.3.9 Case A2-B1-C1-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 4 5 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 5 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 4 days
Since project delay is 5 days, 1 day is inexcusable.
C
D Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2 Since project delay is 5 days, 1 day is inexcusable.
Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
C
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day.
DAT4

79
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 1 2 3 4 5 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 4 days

C
D Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 5 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and 1 day
inexcusable delay.

80
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 4 5 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B
2
Therefore, 4 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
delay events is responsible for 2 day, and 1 day
D
inexcusable delay.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

81
9.3.10 Case A2-B1-C2-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 3 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 3 days

C 1
D 2 Therefore, 3 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events is responsible for 1 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 delay events is responsible for 2 day.

82
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 3 days
Therefore, 2 excusable delay (=3-1)
C 1
D 2 Since, project delay is 3 days, 1 day is inexcusable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 delay.
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events is responsible for 0 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 delay events is responsible for 2 day, and 1day is
inexcusable delay.

83
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay and 1 inexcusable delay.

C And [1] delay events are responsible for 0 day, and
1 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.
D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

84
9.3.11 Case A2-B1-C3-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 3 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 2 days
Therefore, 2 excusable delay.
C
D 2 Since project delay is 3 days, there is 1-day
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 inexcusable delay.
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
C
D 2 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day. Since project
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 delay is 3 days, there is 1-day inexcusable delay.

85
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 3 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
C
D 2 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day. And
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 inexcusable delay is 1day.

86
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day
1 impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay.

C And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
delay events is responsible for 0 day. And 1-day
D
inexcusable delay.
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

87
9.3.12 Case A2-B1-C4-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 3 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1 days acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 2 days
Therefore, 2 excusable delay
C 1
D Since project delay is 3 days, 1 day is inexcusable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 delay.
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events is responsible for 1 day, and [2]
C 1
D delay events is responsible for 1 day.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Since project delay is 3 days, 1 day is inexcusable
delay.

88
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days
1 day is inexcusable delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 3 days
Therefore, 2 excusable delay (=3-1)
C 1
D Inexcusable delay is 1 day.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days
1 day is inexcusable delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 0 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.

Inexcusable delay is 1day.

89
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
impact.  2day Excusable delay
B
2
Therefore, 2 excusable delay and 1 inexcusable delay.
C
1 And [1] delay events are responsible for 0 day, and
D
[2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

90
9.3.13 Case A2-B2-C1-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 3 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1 day acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 4 days
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
C
D Since project delay is 3 days,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2 Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
C
D [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. Since project
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 delay is 3 days, 1-day acceleration
DAT4

91
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days.
Inexcusable delay is 1 day.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 3 days

C
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay (=3-1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days.
Inexcusable delay is 1 day.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4), and 1-

C
D day inexcusable delay.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 And [1] delay events are responsible for 0 day, and
[2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.

92
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay and 1-day
B
acceleration

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B
2
Therefore, 4 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
delay events is responsible for 2 day.
D
And there is 1-day acceleration. Early 1-day

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 inexcusable delay is removed by mitigation.

93
94
9.3.14 Case A2-B2-C2-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 4 5 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 5 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 3 days
Therefore, 3 excusable delay
C 1
D 2 Since project delay is 5 days, inexcusable delay is 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 days.
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1 day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
C 1
D 2 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Since project delay is 5 days, inexcusable delay is 2
days.

95
DAT4
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 4 5 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 5 days
Therefore, 4 excusable delay (=5-1)
C 1
D 2 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 4 5 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. And
inexcusable delay is 1 day.

96
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

97
A 1 2 3 4 5 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay and 3 inexcusable delay.

C And [1] delay events are responsible for 0 day, and
1 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.
D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

98
9.3.15 Case A2-B2-C3-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 3 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 2 days
Therefore, 2 excusable delay
C
D 2 Since project delay is 3-day, inexcusable delay is 1day.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day. And since
project delay is 3-day, inexcusable delay is 1day.

99
DAT4
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 3 days
Therefore, 2 excusable delay (=3-1)
C
D 2 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4) and 1-

C
D 2 day inexcusable delay.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 And [1] delay events is responsible for 0 day, and [2]
delay events is responsible for 2 day.

100
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay and 1-day
B
acceleration.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

101
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2-day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 4 excusable delay.

C And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
[2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. And there is
D
1-day acceleration. 1-day inexcusable delay is
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 removed by mitigation.

102
9.3.16 Case A2-B2-C4-D1

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 3 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 2 days
Therefore, 2 excusable delay
C 1
D Since project delay is 3 days,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Inexcusable delay is 1 day.
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events is responsible for 1 day.
Since project delay is 3 days,

103
 Inexcusable delay is 1 day.
DAT4
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 3 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay (=3-1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day.
And inexcusable delay is 1 day.

104
DAT6
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B
2

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

105
A 1 2 3 When D work is done, there is 2-day impact.  2day
Excusable delay
B
2
Therefore, no excusable delay and 3-day inexcusable
C delay.
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

106
9.3.17 Case A1-B1-C1-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 4 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 4 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
no acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 4 days

C
D Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day.
DAT4

107
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 4 days

C
D Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day.
DAT6

108
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
1 mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay
B
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B
B 2
Therefore, 4 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
[2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. And 1-day
D
inexcusable delay is removed by 1-day mitigation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

109
9.3.18 Case A1-B1-C2-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 3 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 3 days

C 1
D 2 Therefore, 3 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.

110
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 3 days

C 1
D 2 Therefore, 3 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day.
DAT6

111
A 1 When A works is done, there is 1-day impact.  1-
day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, CD path float is all
used.
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, 1-day impact.  1-
day excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 Before [2] delay event take place, there is
[email protected] day mitigation  (-1) day
B
inexcusable delay

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

112
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay.

C And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day. And 1-day
D
inexcusable delay is removed by 1-day mitigation.
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

113
9.3.19 Case A1-B1-C3-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 2 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
2 days acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 2 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day.

114
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 2 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day.
DAT6

115
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day
1 impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B
B
When B work is done, 1 day is mitigation  (-1) day
C inexcusable delay.

D
Therefore, 2 excusable delay.
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
[2] delay events is responsible for 0 day. And 1-day
inexcusable delay is removed by 1-day mitigation.

116
9.3.20 Case A1-B1-C4-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 2 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
2 days acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 2 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events are responsible for 1 day.

117
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 2 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D And [1] delay events is responsible for 1 day, and [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 delay events is responsible for 1 day.
DAT6

118
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, the float of CD path
reduced by C works.
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
 1 day excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
mitigation.  -1-day inexcusable delay
B
2

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

119
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1day Excusable delay
B
2
Therefore, 2 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 [2] delay events are responsible for 1 day, 1-day
D
inexcusable delay is removed by 1-day mitigation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

120
9.3.21 Case A1-B2-C1-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 3 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 4 days
Since project delay is 3 day only, 1 day is acceleration.
C
D Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2 Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
C
D [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. Since project
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 delay is 3 day only, 1 day is acceleration.
DAT4

121
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 3 days

C
D Therefore, 3 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.

DAT6

122
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 mitigation  1-day acceleration, and (-1) inexcusable
B
delay.
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B
B 2
Therefore, 4 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
[2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. And 1-day
D
acceleration. And 1-day inexcusable delay is removed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 by 1-day mitigation.

123
9.3.22 Case A1-B2-C2-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 4 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 4 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
0-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 3 days
Since project delay is 4 days, 1 day is inexcusable
C 1
D 2 delay. Therefore, 3 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day. Since
project delay is 4 days, 1 day is inexcusable delay.

124
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 4 days

C 1
D 2 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day.

DAT6

125
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 When C work is done, it reduced float on CD path.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [1] delay take place, there is 1-day impact 
1-day excusable delay.
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay and 1 inexcusable delay.

C And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.
D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

126
9.3.23 Case A1-B2-C3-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 2 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
2 days acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 2 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day.

127
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 2 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events are responsible for 1 day.
DAT6

128
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2-day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 mitigation  1-day acceleration and -1-day
B
inexcusable delay
B

D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
1 impact.  1-day Excusable delay
B
B
Therefore, 3 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
[2] delay events is responsible for 1 day. And 1-day
D
acceleration. 1-day inexcusable delay is removed by
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 day mitigation.

129
9.3.24 Case A1-B2-C4-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 2 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
2 days acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 2 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events are responsible for 1 day.

130
DAT4
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 2 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day.
DAT6

131
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 When C work is done, the float on CD path is reduced.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
 1-day excusable delay.
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is no impact.
 no Excusable delay
B
2
Therefore, 1-day excusable delay and 1-day
C inexcusable delay.
1 And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
D
[2] delay events are responsible for 0 day.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

132
9.3.25 Case A2-B1-C1-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 4 5 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 5 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 4 days
Since project delay is 5 days, the difference 1 day is
C
D inexcusable delay. Therefore, 4 excusable delay and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1-day inexcusable delay.
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2 Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
C
D [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. Since project
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 delay is 5 days, the 1 day is inexcusable delay.
DAT4

133
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 1 2 3 4 5 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 4 days

C
D Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 5 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2 Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT4)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
C
D [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. And
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 inexcusable delay is 1 day.
DAT6

134
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 4 5 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B
B 2
Therefore, 4 excusable delay and 1-day inexcusable
C delay.
And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
D
[2] delay events is responsible for 2 day.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

135
9.3.26 Case A2-B1-C2-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 3 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 3 days

C 1
D 2 Therefore, 3 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.

136
DAT4
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 3 days.

C 1
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay (=3-1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 0 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day. And 1 day
is inexcusable delay
DAT6

137
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay.

C And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day. And 1-day
D
inexcusable delay is removed by 1-day mitigation.
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

138
9.3.27 Case A2-B1-C3-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 3 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1 day’s acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 2 days
Since project delay is 3 days, the difference 1 day is
C
D 2 inexcusable delay. Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
C
D 2 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day. Since project
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 delay is 3 days, the difference 1 day is inexcusable
delay.

139
DAT4
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 3 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay (=3-1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
C
D 2 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day. And 1 day is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 inexcusable delay.
DAT6

140
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day
1 impact.  0-day Excusable delay
B
B
Therefore, 2 excusable delay and 1 inexcusable delay.
C And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
[2] delay events is responsible for 0 day.
D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

141
9.3.28 Case A2-B1-C4-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 3 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1 day’s acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 2 days
Since project delay is 3 days, the difference 1 day is
C 1
D inexcusable delay. Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
C 1
D [2] delay events are responsible for 1 day. Since
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 project delay is 3 days, the difference 1 day is
inexcusable delay.

142
DAT4
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 2 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 0 day, and
C 1
D [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day. And 1 day
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 is inexcusable delay.
DAT6

143
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day
mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
impact.  2day Excusable delay
B
2
Therefore, 3 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day. And 1 day
D
inexcusable is removed by 1-day mitigation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

144
9.3.29 Case A2-B2-C1-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 3 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 3 4 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 4 days
Since project delay is 3 day, the difference 1 day is
C
D acceleration. Therefore, 4 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 4 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2 Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
C
D [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. Since project
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 delay is 3 day, the difference 1 day is acceleration.
DAT4

145
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 3 days

C
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay (=3-1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 0 day, and
C
D [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day. And 1 day
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 is inexcusable delay.
DAT6

146
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay and 1-day
B
acceleration
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B
B 2
Therefore, 4 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
delay events is responsible for 2 day. 1-day
D
inexcusable delay is removed by 1-day mitigation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Also, there is 1-day acceleration.

147
9.3.30 Case A2-B2-C2-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 4 5 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 5 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 3 days
Therefore, 3 excusable delay. Since project delay is 5
C 1
D 2 days, 2 days is inexcusable delay.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B Therefore, 3 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
C 1
D 2 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day. Since
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 project delay is 5 days, 2 days is inexcusable delay.

148
DAT4
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 4 5 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 5 days

C 1
D 2 Therefore, 4 excusable delay (=5-1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 4 5 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 4 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. And 1-day
inexcusable delay.
DAT6

149
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day delay
 1-day Inexcusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 4 5 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

Therefore, 3 excusable delay and 2 inexcusable delay.

C And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 [2] delay events are responsible for 2 day.
D
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

150
9.3.31 Case A2-B2-C3-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
1 Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
Project delay = 3 days
C
Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1 day’s acceleration / no inexcusable delay
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-planned program = 2 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay. Since project delay is 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 days, the difference 1 day is inexcusable delay.
DAT3
A 1 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)
And [1] delay events is responsible for 2 day, and [2]
C
D 2 delay events is responsible for 0 day. Since project
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 delay is 3 days, the difference 1 day is inexcusable
delay.

151
DAT4
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B at as-built program = 3 days

C
D 2 Therefore, 2 excusable delay (=3-1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 0-day
B impact.

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day impact
B

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C
D 2 And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events is responsible for 0 day. And 1 day is
inexcusable delay.
DAT6

152
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 impact.  2day Excusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 Before [2] delay event take place, there is 2-day
1 mitigation  (-1) day Inexcusable delay and 1-day
B
acceleration
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day
1 impact.  2-day Excusable delay
B
B
Therefore, 4 excusable delay.
C And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
[2] delay events is responsible for 2 day. And there is
D
1-day acceleration. 1-day inexcusable delay is
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 removed by 1-day mitigation.

153
9.3.32 Case A2-B2-C4-D2

DAT1
A 1 2 3 Delay days of [1] event = 2 days
Delay days of [2] event = 2 days
B
Sum of 2 delay events = 4 days
2
Project delay = 3 days
C
1 Therefore, 4 excusable delay
D
1-day acceleration / no inexcusable delay

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DAT2
A Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-planned program = 0 days

C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 2 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-planned program = 2 days
Since project delay is 3 days, 1 day is inexcusable
C 1
D delay. Therefore, 2 excusable delay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT3
A 1 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 When [2] delay event take place, there is 1-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT2)

C 1
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [2] delay events are responsible for 1 day. Since
project delay is 3 days, 1 day is inexcusable delay.

154
DAT4
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 Delay days after Inserting all excusable delay events
B 2 at as-built program = 3 days

C 1
D Therefore, 2 excusable delay (=3-1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 no acceleration / 1-day inexcusable delay
DAT5
A 1 Delay days after removing all excusable delay events
B from as-built program = 1 days, which is inexcusable
delay.
C
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 3 When [1] delay event take place, there is 2-day
B impact.

C 1
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day impact
B 2

Therefore, 2 excusable delay (same of DAT4)

C 1
D And [1] delay events are responsible for 2 day, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [2] delay events is responsible for 1 day. And 1 day is
inexcusable delay.
DAT6

155
A 1 Before [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Inexcusable delay
B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 2 When [1] delay event take place, there is 1-day
impact.  1-day Excusable delay
B

C
1
D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A 1 2 3 When [2] delay event take place, there is 0-day
impact.
B
When D work is done, there is 1-day impact  1-day
2
inexcusable delay.
C Therefore, 1 excusable delay and 2 inexcusable delay.
1 And [1] delay events are responsible for 1 day, and
D
[2] delay events are responsible for 0 day.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

156
9.4 RESEARCH ETHICS FORM

The following forms are included now for future reference for your Critical Practice Project. It
is sensible however to consider ethics at all stages of all research projects.

ETHICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH PROJECT INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS (SHORT VERSION)

To be completed by the student:

FORM REO1

Student: Jiho Park Project Supervisor: David White

Degree Programme: Quantity Surveying Year of Study:

2016/2017
Project Title: Delay Analysis Techniques Start Date: Completion Date:
th
28 Sept 2016 15th Sept 2017
Aims/Objectives of Project:
1. To enhance the understanding about delay analysis techniques (DAT).
2. To enhance the understanding about delay analysis of complex situation (e.g.
mitigation, slowdown, and concurrent delay).

Briefly describe the Project:

1. For first objective, various DATs used for analysis of delay situation throughout
32 pilot cases. Its difference of results was evaluated in quantitative manner. Its
different results were reviewed in consideration of the difference of float
ownership interpretation.
2. For second objective, particular case studies were studied. It shows that
difference results are possible in complex situation even though the situation
and delay analysis technique (DAT) are same. The importance of contractual
notification was noted and different condition in a few standard forms of
contract were compared.

Please give this form to your Supervisor before completing form RE02 together.

157
CHECKLIST FOR ETHICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH PROJECTS INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

To be completed by the Student and Supervisor together FORM REO2

Please indicate your responses Please enter further information

Y (Yes) N (No) NA (Not Applicable)

1 Is this project to be undertaken by Y • Name of student

one student? Jiho Park
2 Is this project to be undertaken by a N • Names of students
group of students?

3 Is partnership/collaboration with N • Name of institution

another institution involved?

4 Has another Ethics Committee N • Ethics Committee & date of

scrutinised the project? scrutiny
5 Could any situation of risk or NA • Sources of risk
insurance claim arise during the project?

6 Have actions been taken to minimise NA • Actions taken

foreseeable risks?
7 Have approaches to selection of NA • Approaches taken
participants/respondents been identified?
8 Has accountability for obtaining NA • Name of person responsible
informed consent been addressed?
9 Have information sheets/informed NA • Brief details
consent forms been developed?
10 Will participants experience NA • Brief details
psychological, social or physical discomfort?
11 Have actions been taken to reduce NA • Actions taken
risk of discomfort?
12 Does the project involve the use of NA • Techniques involved
specialist techniques?
13 Have any training needs been NA • Brief details
identified for the student?
14 Has the student been referred to NA • Source of guidelines
relevant professional guidelines?

158
15 Have actions been taken to safeguard NA Actions taken
data confidentiality & anonymity of
participants?

Decision of Supervisor Signature of Supervisor

Refer to Faculty Research Ethics Committee
Yes/No Date

159