When reviewing which type of delay analysis is most important for a specific case, it’s worth considering the pros and cons of the most commonly accepted methodologies.

One of the most valuable methods is As-Built But For, also known as the Collapsed As-Built method.

What is the As-Built But For / Collapsed As-Built method of delay analysis?

This method is arguably the most difficult to prepare. The activities associated with the delay events (Fragnet) are removed from the updated as-built program. The impact of the respective delay event is established by determining the difference between the impact on critical key dates before and after the respective fragnet is removed. 

With that established, let’s consider the pros:

• Analyses the effect of delay(s) on actual completion; 

• Relies on verifiable as-built data; 

• Judicial acceptance; 

• Each delay is clearly identified in a descending chronological order; 

• Excellent for proving prolongation costs, as the period of each delay is known, and each will have their own specific associated costs; 

• Typically, only actual costs/damages can be claimed and this method links events to their actual contribution to prolongation. 

While is has judicial acceptance and is excellent for proving prolongation costs, there are still a handful of drawbacks to the As-Built But For method.

• Requires concise and documented as-built logic;

• May require several iterations to demonstrate the employer and contractor delay events; 

• Looking ‘backwards’ at what happened can be confusing; 

• Difficult to produce, especially if a ‘running’ as-built program has not been maintained i.e., very difficult to define logic, when it is apparent that either the logic does not exist or records are not available to substantiate the changes to the logic in the as-built program.

At Accura Consulting, our team of experts work with clients to create a tailored solution to problems.

To find out how we can help, get in touch.