EoT Claims Technique


Why it matters?

With delays, it is important to determine which party’s fault they truly are so that no one gets burned by an ugly truth. This has led many companies into using forensic planning – analysis of project facts with regards to who caused the delay on your job site? The terms “Delay Analyse” and ‘Forensic Plan’ usually go hand in glove when describing this process where experts look at what could have been done differently or why something took much longer than expected.”

The prospective analysis is used to plan for future events that may occur. Use of this technique allows one time foresight, which can be useful in many different types such as time impact analysis and Impacted As-Planned (the latter being more relevant when performing retrospection). Retrospective Analysis means looking back at an event from its occurrence until now analyzing what has happened so far; As Planned vs As-Built and As-Built techniques are often utilized during these two forms but not all prospects use them equally well.

Brief note on 4 EoT Claim Techniques

As-Planned vs As-Built

  • When EoT claim expert is not available.

  • When data and records are not accurate and time is short for EoT submission.

  • Non availability of scheduling Software. E.g. Primavera P6
  • Simplest of all technique.

  • Accuracy of project records not needed.

  • Expert not needed and less time consuming.

  • No consideration is given to the criticality of delay.

  • Concurrency of delay is not considered for estimation of delays.

  • No information on type of delay is recorded.

  • Least accurate.
  • Cannot be used in Arbitration/ Litigation.

Impacted As-Planned

  • When the As-Planned schedule is accurate and realistic and delay events are maintained accurately.

  • When As-Built records are inaccurate/ unavailable.

  • Based on Additive simulation.
  • When the Project is ongoing or completed.

  • More accurate than As-Planned vs As-Built.
  • Can be performed on an ongoing Project.
  • Does not rely on As-Built records.
  • Difficult and time consuming technique.

  • May not be accurate if As-Planned schedule have undergone drastic changes over the Project duration. E.g. Variations.

  • Less accurate than Collapsed As-Built.

Collapsed As-Built

  • When the As-Built schedule is accurate and realistic and delay events are maintained accurately.

  • When As-Planned schedule have undergone many changes during the life of the Project.

  • Based on Subtractive simulation.
  • When Project is finished.
  • All changes (e.g Variations, scope addition etc) are taken into consideration.

  • More accurate than Impacted As-Planned.
  • Difficult and time consuming technique.

  • This technique may give different results when performed by the Client against the Contractor.

  • Less accurate than Window Analysis.
  • Can’t be performed on an ongoing Project.

Window Analysis

  • When highest level of accuracy is desired for claiming EoT.

  • When data, records and delay events are maintained accurately.

  • When Project is ongoing or completed.

  • More accurate than other three techniques.
  • Can be utilized for ongoing Project.
  • Most difficult and time consuming technique among the 4 different techniques.

  • Regular schedule update to be done along with inclusion of delay events.

  • Changes in Critical Path is difficult to analyze in this technique when delay is introduced in a given Window.

Here are when each delay analysis technique should be used:

– Time Impact Analysis (TIA aka Window Analysis) will provide you with the most accurate information about how much time your project will require. This is best done at start-to-finish, but it does require realistic updates (not political) and correct forecast for future work – which can sometimes feel like impossible promises in this environment!

– Impacted As-Planned has an easy answer if things go wrong; just take away what was supposed to happen earlier than expected so there’s no extra workload on employees or contractors while they adjust accordingly ̶ though make sure not.

– Windows Analysis can be a very useful tool to have during the course of your project, but all changes that are made need agreement from both sides (the engineer and client) before they happen. This way you know what is going on with every aspect in terms of logic structure- which will help avoid any problems later down the road when its time to finalizing everything!

– As-Built vs As-Planned isn’t always accurate enough in complex projects. We recommend using this method after an initial review has been done where everyone decides exactly how much work needs to be done at each stage so no surprises come up unexpectedly.”

– Collapsed As-Built is an efficient way to resolve project disputes. It can be used at Project completion, but it’s most useful when there are clear plans and ample resources available for analysis in order that everyone may benefit from accurate information about which parts will take longer than others if they’re missed or forgotten during construction.

Some other factors that also need to be considered are as below:

  • Availability and Accuracy of Project records, delay events, variations etc.

  • Accuracy needed and time available to do this analysis.

  • Type of claim and availability of expert for EoT claims.

Share This:

© Project Insights. All Rights Reserved.