Concurrent Delays in
Construction
HOST: OSAMA SAAD
MBA, PMP, PSP, CCP, PMI-SP
Speaker – Osama Saad
A Practitioner in Project Control since 2010.
Skilled in Planning, Power BI, Delay Analysis and Claims.
BSc in Civil Engineering.
Studied MBA in UK – Research around construction.
Worked in super large construction projects.
Member of PMI, AACEI
Director of Marketing at AACEI-UAE (volunteer role).
Based in UAE. I offer:
Project control services for companies.
Delay analysis and claims consultations.
Project Control Training.
Class Content
Evaluation of concurrency.
Literal vs Functional Theories
The three types of delay events
Cause-based vs effect-based delay type
Concurrency in a prospective delay analysis environment
Concurrency analysis approaches
Concurrency and prolongation cost
Pacing delay in the concurrency context
Evaluation of concurrency
Pre-Requisite Findings Concerning the Delays Being Evaluated for
Concurrency as per AACE FSA RP 29R-03
There must be:
Two or more delays that are unrelated, independent and would
have delayed the project even if the other delay did not exist.
Two or more delays that are the contractual responsibility of
different parties but one may be a force majeure event.
The delay must be involuntary.
The delayed work must be substantial and not easily curable.
Evaluation of concurrency
“The expression “concurrent delay” is used to denote a
period of project overrun which is caused by two or more
effective causes of delay which are of approximately equal
causative potency”
CONCURRENT DELAY REVISITED, John Marrin QC, SCL Paper
Literal vs Functional Theory
Literal Theory: the delays need to have occurred at the same
time. It is also known as “true” concurrency. It is criticized
because it is too narrow.
Functional Theory: the delays need to have occurred within the
same analysis period.
In the RP 29R-03, sub-section H of all MIPs states:
“Determine whether literal or functional concurrency theory is to
be used.”
Types of delay events as
per ALV in the RP 29R-03
Waiting Type: delays the activity start.
Interruption Type: Causes work stoppage,
interruption and pauses during the work
execution.
Performance Type: Extends the activity
duration due to slow rate of progress.
Delay-Cause vs Delay-Effect
Waiting Type & Interruption Type: Delay-
Cause Approach
Performance Type: Delay-Effect
Approach
Delay-Cause vs Delay-Effect
Source: Society of Construction law - Delay and Disruption Protocol
SCL vs FSA
SCL, DDP AACE, FSA 29R-03
• Avoids the “wait and see” approach • Recommends the retrospective
and recommends prospective analysis. analysis.
• Centered on “Time Impact Analysis” • Equal weight to all techniques.
Concurrency in a prospective
delay analysis environment
Prolongation Costs Examples
Examples of Site Overhead
Project Manager
Project Engineer
QS / Cost Controller
Planner / Scheduler
Document Controller
HSE Staff
Temporary Offices
Yard Costs
Security / Fencing
Hoist/Tower Crane
Scaffolding
Generators
Equipment / Facilities
Concurrency impact on
Prolongation Cost
Project
Completion
Data Date
Original Project Duration Project Delays (EOT)
Prolongation Costs
Longest Path Delay by Employer
(EOT)
Critical Path # Delay by Contractor
Prolongation Costs are calculated for the difference between Employer’s Delays
and Contractor’s Delays
Concurrency in a prospective environment
• In a prospective delay analysis method, forecasted delays are
evaluated based on the remaining planned work in the baseline
program. This gives the alarm.
• Forecasted Concurrency and Prolongation Cost are also
calculated based on this approach. This should only give the
alarm.
• Perform “but for” test of causation.
• Refer the attached calculation sheet.
Pacing Delays
Pacing Delay
A pacing delay vs what we think it is a pacing delay.
The Contractor deliberately slows the rate of progress of some
activities to keep pace with critical delays caused by other
parties (parent delay).
Pacing Delay
Conditions of pacing delays
Identifying the most dominant critical excusable delays.
A proof of a quick action to pace the work.
Notification to the party that the work would be paced.
The ability to meet the planned output if the delays are avoided.
Pacing Delay
There are many reasons to keep pace with the delays. For example, it
can:
Avoid the idle time of resources.
Maintain a consistent workflow.
Avoid additional costs from speeding up the work (unnecessarily).
Concurrency Analysis Approaches
Concurrency Analysis Approaches
1- First-in-line Approach
It assumes that the first occurring event of the two overlapping events is
the one that is responsible for the overall critical delays.
It doesn’t account for how significant or dominant the delay event is.
As you might guess, this approach is unfair.
Concurrency Analysis Approaches
2- The Dominant Cause Approach
Identify the most dominant delay event among other competing
delay events.
The dominance test: Dominant has a number of meanings:
“Ruling, prevailing, most influential, most critical, most costly”.
In practice, we need to use the "longest path" more often in this
analysis for time impact evaluations.
Concurrency Analysis Approaches
3- The Apportionment Approach
allocation of the time impact of competing causes of delay based on
their relative significance or relative causative potency. (1)
Apportionment allows liability for concurrent delay to be shared in
equal or other proportions between the parties rather than being
attributed to the employer alone. (2)
This approach has received some support from judgments in Canada,
Scotland, Hong Kong and Australia. (2)
(1) Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts, 2nd Edition P.J. Keane and A. F. Caletka, Wiley Blackwell.
(2) Construction Law in the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf, Michael Grose, Wiley Blackwell.
The Stacked Effect
Foundation
Super-structure Concrete
Blockwork
Foundation Delay Delay
Super-structure Concrete
Blockwork
The Stacked Effect
3 weeks
Blockwork
Delay
2 weeks
Concrete
Delay
Foundations
4 weeks
Delay
Final Thoughts
The exact meaning of what a concurrent delay is hasn’t been
finalized under the English law yet.
FIDIC lacks an explicit explanation of the concurrent delay.
Concurrency analysis performed by planning engineers might
be different from the analysis performed by court appointed
experts.
Take into consideration, commercial customs and practice.
Final Thoughts
Distinguish between Concurrent Delays and Concurrent Causes
of Delay.
Having different delay types (ALVs) in the same analysis can be
challenging (e.g. 1 week of adverse weather “Interruption Type”
and shortage of labor “Performance Type”).
The Future
We need to start addressing delay analysis methods and
concurrency in the Contract.
The topic needs to be addressed in FIDIC, NEC, FAR, JCT.
We need more qualified contract professionals who can
address the delay analysis and concurrency in the Contract.
We need more research (surveys, analysis of previous court
cases, etc).
Additional Readings
Suggested Papers
John Marrin QC, SCL
“Concurrent Delays—What Are They and How to Deal With Them?”, CDR.
07, AACE.
“Identifying the As‐Built Critical Path Using Recommended Practice
29R‐03”, CDR. 3162, AACE.
“The Great Debate: Concurrency vs. Pacing Slaying the Two-Headed
Dragon”, CDR. 06, AACE.
“Evaluating Concurrent Delay: Unscrambling the Egg”, Glen Grenier
(2010) 26 Construction Law Letter, No. 6.
‘Concurrent and Sequential Causes of Delay’, Paul Tobin (2007) 24 ICLR
142
Thank You
Questions?
