ASCE 67-17-2017 Schedule Delay Analysis.pdf

1、ASCE STANDARDANSI/ASCE/CI67-17Schedule Delay AnalysisASCE STANDARD ANSI/ASCE/CI67-17Schedule DelayAnalysisPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERSLibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataNames: American Society of Civil Engineers, author.Title: Schedule delay analysis.Descriptio

2、n: Reston, Virginia : American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017 | “ASCESTANDARD ANSI/ASCE/CI 67-17.” | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identiers: LCCN 2017023374 | ISBN 9780784414361 (soft cover : alk. paper) | ISBN9780784480861 (PDF)Subjects: LCSH: BuildingSuperintendenceStandards. |

3、Production schedulingStandards.Classication: LCC TH438.4.A44 2017 | DDC 692dc23 LC record available at https:/lccn.loc.gov/2017023374Published by American Society of Civil Engineers1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, Virginia, 20191-4382www.asce.org/bookstore | ascelibrary.orgThis standard was develope

4、d by a consensus standards development process that has beenaccredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Accreditation by ANSI, avoluntary accreditation body representing public and private sector standards developmentorganizations in the United States and abroad, signies that the

5、 standards developmentprocess used by ASCE has met the ANSI requirements for openness, balance, consensus, anddue process.While ASCEs process is designed to promote standards that reect a fair and reasonedconsensus among all interested participants, while preserving the public health, safety, andwel

6、fare that is paramount to its mission, it has not made an independent assessment of anddoes not warrant the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information,apparatus, product, or process discussed herein. ASCE does not intend, nor shouldanyone interpret, ASCEs standards to replace

7、 the sound judgment of a competentprofessional, having knowledge and experience in the appropriate eld(s) of practice, norto substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting andapplying the contents of this standard.ASCE has no authority to enforce compliance with i

8、ts standards and does not undertake tocertify products for compliance or to render any professional services to any person or entity.ASCE disclaims any and all liability for any personal injury, property damage, nancial loss,or other damages of any nature whatsoever, including without limitation any

9、 direct, indirect,special, exemplary, or consequential damages, resulting from any persons use of, or relianceon, this standard. Any individual who relies on this standard assumes full responsibility forsuch use.ASCE and American Society of Civil EngineersRegistered in U.S. Patent and TrademarkOfce.

10、Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCEpublications can be requested by sending an e-mail to permissionsasce.org or by locatinga title in ASCEs Civil Engineering Database (http:/cedb.asce.org) or ASCE Library(http:/ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissi

11、ons” link.Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https:/doi.org/10.1061/9780784414361.Copyright 2017 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.All Rights Reserved.ISBN 978-0-7844-1436-1 (soft cover)ISBN 978-0-7844-8086-1 (PDF)Manufactured in the United States of America.24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 1 2

12、 3 4 5ASCE STANDARDSIn 2014, the Board of Direction approved revisions to the ASCERules for Standards Committees to govern the writing andmaintenance of standards developed by ASCE. All such stan-dards are developed by a consensus standards process managedby the ASCE Codes and Standards Committee (C

13、SC). Theconsensus process includes balloting by a balanced standardscommittee and reviewing during a public comment period. Allstandards are updated or reafrmed by the same process everyve to ten years. Requests for formal interpretations shall beprocessed in accordance with Section 7 of ASCE Rules

14、forStandards Committees, which are available at www.asce.org.Errata, addenda, supplements, and interpretations, if any, for thisstandard can also be found at www.asce.org.The form of this Standard reects the goals of the ScheduleDelay Analysis Standards Committee of the ConstructionInstitute of ASCE

15、. The provisions of this document are writtenin permissive language and, as such, offer to the user a series ofoptions or instructions but do not prescribe a specic course ofaction. Signicant judgment is left to the user of this document.This standard has been prepared in accordance with recog-nized

16、 engineering principles and should not be used without theusers competent knowledge for a given application. The publi-cation of this standard by ASCE is not intended to warrant thatthe information contained therein is suitable for any general orspecic use, and ASCE takes no position respecting the

17、validityof patent rights. The user is advised that the determination ofpatent rights or risk of infringement is entirely their ownresponsibility.A complete list of currently available standards is available inthe ASCE Library (http:/ascelibrary.org/page/books/s-standards).iiiThis page intentionally

18、left blankCONTENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS . vii1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 SCOPE 33 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 CRITICA

19、L PATH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.1 Because the Critical Path Is Dynamic, Delays Should Be Evaluated Based on the Critical Path DuringEach Delay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.2 Contemporaneous Schedules Should Be Maintained to Reect Actual Performance, the Plan to Completethe Work, and Delay, Should It Occur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.3 Delay Must Be Critical to the Current Adjusted Completi

21、on Date for Consideration of aTime Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.4 Delay Should Generally Be Measured by the Change to the Scheduled Completion Date Caused bythe Delay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.5 Excusable Delays Are Typically Events Outside the Contractors Control and Entitle the Contractor to aTime Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.6 In Situations Where th

23、e Completion Date Is Adjusted Properly for Change Orders and the Contractor Is BehindSchedule, OwnerDelays that Occur Thereafter ona Separate Path May Have a Mitigating Effecton Assessmentof Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24、 84.7 For a Delay to Be Compensable, It Should Be the Sole Cause of Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 FLOAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.1 Activities with Float Are Not Critical. . . . . . . . . .

25、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.2 Float Is Owned by the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.3 Excessive Constraints on Activitiesthat Interfere with a Logic-Driven Critical Path May ComplicateEvaluationof Critical De

26、lays and Should Be Considered in a Delay Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.4 If Multiple Milestones Have Delay Damages Associated with Them, a Separate Delay Analysis Should BePerformed for Each Milestone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27、. . . . . 96 EARLY COMPLETION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116.1 A Plan to Finish Early Should Be Reasonable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116.2 Generally, the Contractor May Be Allowed to Collec

28、t Delay Damages to an Early Completion Schedule butMay Not Collect an Excusable Time Extension Until the Scheduled Completion Date Exceeds the ContractCompletion Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 CHRONOLOGY OF DELAY . . . . . .

29、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137.1 Delays Should Be Evaluated as They Occur in Chronological Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137.2 A Schedule Delay Analysis Should Reect an Analysis of Prior Entitlement so as to Reect a CurrentAdjuste

30、d Completion Date Prior to Evaluating Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137.3 Consideration Should Be Included as to How Delays Were Evaluated by the Participants Duringthe Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31、 . . . . . . . 137.4 Evaluation of Delay Chronology Should Be Documented and Supported with ContemporaneousRecords. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 CONCURRENT DELAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158.1 Concurrent Delay Can Be Described as a Situation Where Two or More Critical Delays Are Occurring at theSame Time During All or a Portion of the Delay Time Frame in Which the Delays Are Occurring . . . . 158.2 Concurrent Delay Typically Is Excusable but No

33、ncompensable, Meaning a Time Extension Is Given but NoCosts Are Recovered by Either Party. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158.3 Concurrent Delay Should Be Apportioned Where Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Schedule Delay Analys

34、is v9 RESPONSIBILITY FOR DELAY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179.1 A Schedule Expert Typically Can Identify the Party Responsible for a Delay from the ContemporaneousRecords, Interviewing Project Personnel, and Reading Deposition Testimony, an

35、d May Rely on TechnicalExperts or Fact Witnesses in Opining on Liability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179.2 During a Project, the Contractor Should Provide the Owner with a Notice of Delay for Excusable Delays,Followed by a Request for a Change in Accordance with the

36、Contract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179.3 Responsibility Analysis Should Be Supported by a Factual Chronology Based on the Contemporaneous ProjectPerformance Records and Referencing the Remedy-Granting Clause of the Contract. . . . . . . . . . . . . 179.4 The Schedule Expert Should Attem

37、pt to Discuss the Issue with the Individual Directly Involved and Who HasFactual Knowledge of the Delay Issue, Where Feasible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179.5 Schedule Experts Should Not Opine Beyond Their Expertise. If Necessary, a Technical Expert Should BeEngaged on W

38、hose Opinion the Schedule Expert Can Rely. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189.6 Once a Technical Experts Finding as to Which Party Was Liable for the Delay Event Is Formed, a LegalReview May Be Made with Counsel Consistent with Legal Precedent in the Project Jurisdiction . . . . .

39、 . 1810 CHANGING SCHEDULES AFTER THE FACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1910.1 The Schedules Should Be Presumed Correct as They Were Used During the Project, Unless Otherwise Shownto Be Inaccurate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1910.2 After-the-Fact Changes to Schedules Used During the Project Should Be Minimized and Only Made WhereNecessary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1910.3 Any Changes Made to the Contemporaneo

41、us Record of Project Schedules Should Be Carefully Identied andDocumented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1910.4 When Possible, the Preference for Dealing with Inaccurate Schedules After the Fact Is to Make Corrections,Rather than

42、 Abandon the Schedules, Subject to the Nature and Scope of the Corrections . . . . . . . . . . 2010.5 Changes to Schedules Generally May Be Made to Correct Necessary Physical or Contractual Constraints butTypically Not the Contractors Preferential Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43、 . . . . . . . 2011 ACCELERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.1 Parties Have the Right to Voluntarily Accelerate, Subject to Contract Terms and Conditions . . . . . . . . 2111.2 For Owner-Directed Acceleration, the Parti

44、es Should Agree on the Acceleration Plan Prior to Implementation.The Right to Direct Acceleration Unilaterally Should Be Addressed by Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.3 Constructive Acceleration Can Be Proved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.4 When

45、Implementing an Acceleration Plan, Acceleration of Multiple Paths in the Schedule MayBe Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46、 . . . . . . . . . . . 23INDEX . 25vi ANSI/ASCE/CI STANDARD 67-17ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) acknowledgesthe contributions of the Schedule Delay Analysis StandardCommittee of the Construction Institute in assisting with devel-opment of this ASCE industry standard.Ro

47、bert M. DOnofrio, P.E., ChairJohn C. Anderson, P.E.David Arditi, Ph.D.Jesus M. de la Garza, Ph.D.Thomas J. DriscollBrian J. Furniss, P.E., PSP, CFCCDavid W. Halligan, P.E.John P. Lamutt, P.E.Frank J. Regnery, P.E.Mark Sanders, P.E.Ted M. Scott, III, P.E.Schedule Delay Analysis viiThis page intention

48、ally left blankCHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONCritical path method (CPM) schedules, properly prepared andmaintained, make it possible to demonstrate, with reasonablecertainty, the impact that can occur as a result of delays on aproject. Delays can be reasonably identied, isolated, and quan-tied, and concurren

49、t delays segregated. CPM networking tech-niques can be of evidential value to demonstrate causation andliability and also to apportion delays when concurrent delaysoccur.It is important for project participants to understand not onlythe techniques of scheduling but also that a project schedule canserve as a basis for delineating the respective rights, obligations,and warranties owing from the schedule. A number of keyissues are associated with a project schedule that have legalimplications.Also, it is important to keep the project schedule properlyup