CHALLENGES OF THE SCL DELAY AND DISRUPTION PROTOCOL

1
CHALLENGES OF THE SCL DELAY AND DISRUPTION
PROTOCOL Tony Farrow Trett Consulting www.trett.c
om
2
AGENDA

• Background (Contracts, Delays, Analysis, Claims,
  Disputes, Resolution)
• The Protocol (Structure)
• The Protocol (Aims and Achievements)
• Challenges in Implementing the Protocol

3
Contracts and Project Delays

• Contracts have completion dates and liquidated
  damages are tied to completion date
• Extension of Time clauses maintain LD provisions
  where there has been breach by Employer
• If Employer causes a delay and there is no EOT
  clause, time can (not universal) become at
  large and LD clause fails.
• EOTs also relate to financial matters including
  bonus situation

4
Contracts and Project Delays

• Contract provisions define the basis of
  entitlement
• Contracts are imprecise as to how to demonstrate
  delay and prove entitlement
• Debate about actual delay and contractual
  entitlement
• Hence Delay Analysis Methodology has developed
• SCL Protocol advances Delay Analysis
• Delay to be on the critical path

5
Extension of Time Methods

• Estimate or Model Methods (investigate the EVENT
  and its potential impact)
• Actual Methods (identify the DELAY period and
  investigate what caused it)

6
Model Based Methods

• Global and Net Impact Methods
• As-Planned Impact
• As-Planned But For
• Collapsed As-Built (As-Built But For)
• Time Impact Analysis (Impact / Update)

7
Actual Based Methods

• As-Planned vs As-Built
• Windows / Snap-Shot

8
Model Based Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Activity
ACTIVITY A
OriginalCompletion
ACTIVITY B
ACTIVITY C
9
Actual Based Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Activity
ACTIVITY A
OriginalCompletion
ACTIVITY B
ACTIVITY C
10
Prospective and Retrospective Approaches

• P looks forward and anticipates delay
  (Preventative forward looking)
• R looks back and establishes cause of delay
  (Curative allocation of blame)
• SCL Protocol offers another approach to R put
  yourself back at the time of the event and
  re-assess what might have happened had things
  been done differently.

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dur
Activity
A 6 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 2 wks
PLANNED PROGRAMME
Original Overall Duration 7 Weeks
Critical Path runs through activities A and B
12
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
B 1 wk
C 5 wks
D 4 wks
AS-BUILT PROGRAMME
As-Built Overall Duration 10 Weeks
Critical Path ran through activities C, D and B
13
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 10
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
B 1 wk
C 5 wks
D 4 wks
DELAYING EVENTS
Events d1, d2 and d4 Owner Delays
Event d3 Contractor Delay
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dur
Activity
A 6 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 2 wks
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED
Uses planned programme
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dur
Activity
A 6 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 2 wks
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED
Add in first delay to occur (d1)
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dur
Activity
A 6 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 2 wks
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED
Add in first delay to occur (d1)
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dur
Activity
A 6 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 2 wks
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED
Add in first delay to occur (d1)
- 1 Week Critical Delay
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dur
Activity
A 6 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 2 wks
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED
Add in first delay to occur (d1)
- 1 Week Critical Delay
Add in 2nd delay to occur (d2)
- No Critical Delay
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dur
Activity
A 6 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 2 wks
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED
Add in first delay to occur (d1)
- 1 Week Critical Delay
Add in 2nd delay to occur (d2)
- No Critical Delay
Add in 3rd delay to occur (d3)
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dur
Activity
A 6 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 2 wks
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED
Add in first delay to occur (d1)
- 1 Week Critical Delay
Add in 2nd delay to occur (d2)
- No Critical Delay
Add in 3rd delay to occur (d3)
- 2 Weeks Critical Delay
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dur
Activity
A 6 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 2 wks
AS-PLANNED IMPACTED
Add in first delay to occur (d1)
- 1 Week Critical Delay
Add in 2nd delay to occur (d2)
- No Critical Delay
Add in 3rd delay to occur (d3)
- 2 Weeks Critical Delay
Add in 4th delay to occur (d4)
- No Critical Delay
22
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 10
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
B 1 wk
C 5 wks
D 4 wks
COLLAPSED AS-BUILT
Uses as-built programme logic linked
23
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 10
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
B 1 wk
C 5 wks
D 4 wks
COLLAPSED AS-BUILT
Critical Path Identified and first employer delay
removed
24
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 10
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 4 wks
COLLAPSED AS-BUILT
Critical Path Identified and first employer delay
removed
25
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 10
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 4 wks
COLLAPSED AS-BUILT
Critical Path Identified and first employer delay
removed
1 Weeks Critical Delay Allocated to d1
26
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 10
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 4 wks
COLLAPSED AS-BUILT
Critical Path Identified and next employer delay
removed
1 Weeks Critical Delay Allocated to d1
27
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 10
Completion Date Week 7
A 7 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 4 wks
COLLAPSED AS-BUILT
Critical Path Identified and next employer delay
removed
1 Weeks Critical Delay Allocated to d1
1 Weeks Critical Delay Allocated to d4
28
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 10
Completion Date Week 7
A 7 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 4 wks
COLLAPSED AS-BUILT
Critical Path Identified and next employer delay
removed
1 Weeks Critical Delay Allocated to d1
1 Weeks Critical Delay Allocated to d4
29
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 10
Completion Date Week 7
A 6 wks
B 1 wk
C 2 wks
D 4 wks
COLLAPSED AS-BUILT
Critical Path Identified and next employer delay
removed
1 Weeks Critical Delay Allocated to d1
1 Weeks Critical Delay Allocated to d4
1 Weeks Critical Delay Allocated to d2
30
Results from Model Based Methods
As-Planned Impact 1 week critical delay no
critical delay 2 weeks critical delay no
critical delay
Collapsed As-Built 1 week critical delay 1 week
delay no critical delay 1 week critical delay
Delay d1 (VO) d2 (bad weather) d3 (lack
resources) d4 (late info)
31
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
B 1 wk
C 5 wks
D 4 wks
AS-PLANNED vs AS-BUILT
As-Built Overall Duration 10 Weeks
Critical Path ran through activities C, D and B
32
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
1
2
3
B 1 wk
C 5 wks
D 4 wks
AS-PLANNED vs AS-BUILT (WINDOWS)
Programme divided into time slices and analysed
progressively
33
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
1
B 1 wk
C 5 wks
D 4 wks
AS-PLANNED vs AS-BUILT (WINDOWS)
Programme divided into time slices and analysed
progressively
34
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
2
B 1 wk
C 5 wks
D 4 wks
AS-PLANNED vs AS-BUILT (WINDOWS)
Programme divided into time slices and analysed
progressively
35
Dur
Activity
Completion Date Week 7
A 8 wks
3
B 1 wk
C 5 wks
D 4 wks
AS-PLANNED vs AS-BUILT (WINDOWS)
Programme divided into time slices and analysed
progressively
36
The planned programme is reconstructed and
divided into snap-shot periods
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
37
Delays occurring within the first snap-shot
period are added and the programme is re-analysed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Planned Finish Date
Ground Works
Basement
Delay Influenced End Date
Floor 1
1
Floor 2
Floor 3
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
38
The actual progress within thesnapshot period is
researched
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Planned Finish Date
Ground Works
Basement
Delay Influenced End Date
Floor 1
1
Floor 2
Floor 3
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
39
The planned programme is updated to reflect the
actual progress within the snapshot period and
then re-analysed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Planned Finish Date
Ground Works
Basement
Delay Influenced End Date
Floor 1
1
Floor 2
Floor 3
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
40
The next snapshot period is analysed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ground Works
End Date as at end of 1st snapshot period
2
Basement
Floor 1
Floor 2
Floor 3
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
41
Delays occurring within the 2nd snap-shot period
are added and the programme is re-analysed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ground Works
2
End Date as at end of 1st snapshot period
Basement
Delay Influenced End Date
Floor 1
Floor 2
Floor 3
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
42
The actual progress within the snapshot period is
researched
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ground Works
2
End Date as at end of 1st snapshot period
Basement
Delay Influenced End Date
Floor 1
Floor 2
Floor 3
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
43
The planned programme is updated to reflect the
actual progress within the snapshot period and
then re-analysed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ground Works
2
End Date as at end of 1st snapshot period
Basement
Delay Influenced End Date
Floor 1
Floor 2
Floor 3
TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS
44
Programme Float
45
Two Main Types

• Terminal
• Total

46
Contract Completion Date
10 days
10 days
15 days
47
Who Owns the Float ?
48
Contract Completion Date
10 days
TERMINAL FLOAT
10 days
49
Contract Completion Date
TERMINAL FLOAT
50
Contract Completion Date
10 days
TERMINAL FLOAT
10 days
51
Contract Completion Date
10 days
TERMINAL FLOAT
10 days
52
CONCURRENCY
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
Contractors Fault
Employers Fault
58
1 Week EOT
59
1 Week no LE/ 1 week LDs
60
Employers Fault
Contractors Fault
61
2 Weeks EoT
62
1 Week Prolongation costs
63
THE SCL PROTOCOL
64
THE PROTOCOL (STRUCTURE)

• CORE PRINCIPLES
• GUIDANCE NOTES
• S1. Explains the Core Principles
• S2. Deals with Programming and Record Keeping
• S3. Extensions of Time (Prospective)
• S4. Extensions of Time (Retrospective)
• APPENDICES
• A. Definitions
• B. Model Specification Clause (Programmes)
• C. Model Specification Clause (Records)
• D. Illustrations

65
CORE PRINCIPLES

• Good Programme Systems and Management
• Good Record Systems and Management
• Contemporaneous, incremental, assessment of
  delays and award of Extensions of Time
• Time Impact Analysis is the preferred methodology
• Float Project owns, Contractor receives
  compensation
• Concurrency Contractor receives Time but no
  Money
• Retrospective delay analysis Re-live the
  Project contradicts usual assessment of damage?

66
GUIDANCE NOTES - S1

• Definitions (Appendix A)
• Extension of Time principles
• Float
• Concurrency
• Mitigation (best endeavours)
• Variations
• Global Claims
• Overheads
• Profit
• Acceleration (does not address Constructive
  Acceleration)

67
GUIDANCE NOTES S2

• Form of Programme (Appendix B)
• Method Statement
• Timetables for issue (Initial and Agreed)
• Updates and Revisions
• Software
• Record Keeping (Appendix C)

68
GUIDANCE NOTES S3

• Extensions of Time during the Project
  (Prospective)
• Time Impact Analysis
• Updated Programmes
• Revised Programmes
• Level of detail in any analysis
• Illustrations (Appendix D)

69
GUIDANCE NOTES S4

• Extensions of Time after the Project
  (Retrospective)
• Four Methods
• Updated/Revised Programmes
• Balance taken re time/costs
• Consider the terms of the Contract
• Factual analysis or Entitlement driven?
• Placing oneself back at the time of the delay

70
THE PROTOCOL -AIMS-

• Not intended as a contract document
• Offers specification terms for programme
  management and record keeping
• Offers guidance in the management of delay and
  disruption that is, in the management of change
• Extensions of Time should be dealt with at the
  time
• Time Impact Analysis is the recommended method

71
THE PROTOCOL -ACHIEVEMENTS-

• Hoped that Contracting Parties would adopt its
  recommendations Prospective X
• Hoped/Attempted to have industry contracting
  bodies adopt it Prospective X
• Attempted to have the Courts adopt it
  Retrospective X
• Delay Analysts adopt it v
• Added to knowledge Great Debate!

72
THE PROTOCOL -CHALLENGES-

• Must be Industry/Profession/Employer led
• Main Contractors would be unwise adopting it with
  Subcontractors
• It reduces risk pre-set rules/outcomes
• It increases risk assumes one solution for
  all cases
• Early delays tend to over-compensate the
  Contractor
• Protocol needs re-drafting to remove optional
  aspects

73
THE PROTOCOL -CHALLENGES-

• Needs to deal more practically with constructive
  acceleration
• Should advance a debate on the fairness of
  condition precedent clauses
• Does it amend the basis upon which damage is
  normally assessed?
• English law focussed need to consider other
  legal systems.

74
THE PROTOCOL -CONCLUSIONS-

• Drafting requirements
• Commercial implications risk issue
• Methodology greatly influences outcomes
• Practical implications skills and resources
  required
• Not widely adopted yet on live projects
• Authors to be complemented for creating Great
  Debate

75
DELAY CASE STUDY
76
(No Transcript)
77
(No Transcript)
78
(No Transcript)
79
(No Transcript)
80
Delay 4 Crane Delay
81
Delay 4 Crane Delay
82
Delay 4 Crane Delay
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Slow Progress
PlannedCompletion
1 STEEL FRAME
Sub-Contractor A
2 WALLS ROOF
Main Contractor
Late Switchgear Delivery
3 SWITCH GEAR
Sub-Contractor B
Inherent Design Fault
Crane Delay
4 ACCESS GANTRY
Main Contractor
200T CRANE
Main Contractor
Approved Programme
84
REVIEW
85
Collapsed As-Built Method
86
Collapsed As-Built Method
87
Collapsed As-Built Method
88
Collapsed As-Built Method
89
Collapsed As-Built Method
Reverse the Sequence
90
Collapsed As-Built Method
Reverse the Sequence
91
Collapsed As-Built Method
92
Collapsed As-Built Method
93
Employers Liability for Week 11 12As-Planned
Impact Method
94
(No Transcript)
95
Dominant Delay - 2 Weeks Delay by Subcontractor B
Late Switchgear Delivery
96
Answer 1 Month 11 - Subcontractor A Month 12 -
Main Contractor Month 13 - Subcontractor
B Answer 2 Month 11 - Subcontractor A Month 12 -
Subcontractor B Month 13 - Subcontractor
B Answer 3 Month 11 - Subcontractor B Month 12 -
Subcontractor B Month 13 - Subcontractor
B Answer 4 Month 11 - Employer's Liability Month
12 - Subcontractor B Month 13 - Subcontractor B