Bài giảng Khiếu nại do chậm trễ

Nội dung text: Bài giảng Khiếu nại do chậm trễ

1. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng Project Description: one-story house with garage, in which the garage shares a wall with the house. Activities necessary to build the house: HOUSE • Activity 1: Excavation • Activity 2: Foundation • Activity 3: Joining Walls • Activity 4: House Walls • Activity 5: House Roof • Activity 6: Select Finishes • Activity 7: Interior Finishes • Activity 8: Clean Up GARAGE • Activity 9: Fabrication & Delivery of Garage Door • Activity 10: Garage Walls • Activity 11: Garage Roof • Activity 12: Garage Doors Nguồn: Phỏng theo Stumpf (2000) ©2010 củaNguyễn Duy Long, TiếnSỹ 21 Tình huống áp dụng  As-Planned Schedule . The As-Planned schedule assumes a project duration of 16 weeks. . The critical path encompasses all the house activities (red bars). . The garage acti viti es have 3 weeks of float. Nguồn: Phỏng theo Stumpf (2000) ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 22 11
2. 7/7/2010 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 23 Tình hu ống áp dụng  Description of delays ◦ Excavation: Delayed for 3 weeks (contractor encountered unforeseen rock at week #2). ◦ House Walls: Two weeks after the beginning of this activity the contractor had to stopp( the work (owner decided to chan ge the windows s pecified in the ori ginal . design). The owner took 2 weeks to decide that the original windows were suitable, after all. ◦ House and Garage Walls: The framing sub-contractor had financial problems and abandoned the job after working for 2 weeks on the house and garage walls (contractor took 3 weeks to hire a new framing sub-contractor). ◦ Garage Doors: Contractor took 4 weeks longer than planned to order the garage doors (week #11, instead of week #7) ◦ Select Finishes: Owner took 6 weeks longer than intended to select finishes (end of week #18, instead of at the end of week #12, as planned). ◦ Interior Finishes: The contractor took 2 weeks longer than planned to complete the interior finishes, due to lack of material. ◦ Garage Walls: The contractor took 1 week longer than planned to complete the garage walls. ◦ Garage Doors: When the garage doors were delivered, at the end of week 17, the owner changed his mind and decided to use different doors. The new doors took 4 weeks to be delivered. Nguồn: Phỏng theo Stumpf (2000) ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 24 12
3. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng Activity Delay Description Type of Time Delay (weeks) 1 – Excavation Unforeseen rock EC 3 4 – House walls Window reconsideration EC 2 4 & 10 – House & Replace framing NE 3 Garage walls subcontractor 12 – Garage doors Late order of door NE 4 6 – Select finishes Late selection of finishes EC 6 7 – Interior finishes Productivity problems NE 2 10 – Garage walls Productivity problems NE 1 12 – Garage doors Revised doors EC 4 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 25 Tình huống áp dụng  As-Built Schedule . The as-built schedule represents the schedule at the end of the project. . Shows the real project duration and the effective start and end date of all the activities. . The as-built duration of the project was 24 weeks rather than the 16 weeks planned duration. Nguồn: Phỏng theo Stumpf (2000) ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 26 13
4. 7/7/2010 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 27 Tình huống áp dụng  As-Planned versus As-Built Method - RESULTS Total Project Delay: 8 weeks Owner-Caused Delays Excavation (unforeseen rock) 3 weeks House Walls (windows reconsideration) 2 weeks Select Finishes (late selection of interior finishes) 6 weeks Garage Doors (revise garage doors) 4 weeks TOTAL 15 weeks Contractor-Caused Delays House and Garage Walls (framing sub-contractor substitution) 3 weeks Garage Doors (late order of the garage door) 4 weeks Interior Finishes (increased duration of interior finishes) 2 weeks Garage WllWalls (increase d dtiduration of the garage walls ) 1 week TOTAL 10 weeks Allocation of Delays  Both parties were responsible for at least 10 weeks of delay. Thus, there was a concurrent delay of 10 weeks.  The owner was responsible for 5 weeks of delay (15 – 10 = 5 weeks).  The project total delay was 8 weeks. Therefore, the contractor is responsible for the remaining balance of 3 weeks (8 weeks – 5 weeks = 3 weeks). ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 28 14
5. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Impacted As-Planned Method ◦ Impacted As-Planned with Owner-Caused Delays The contactor or his analyst adds the owner-caused delays (Excusable Compensable delays) to the as-planned schedule to assess their impacts in the overall project and determine the contactor’s compensation. Summary of Owner-Caused Delays Excavation (unforeseen rock) 3 weeks House Walls (windows reconsideration) 2 weeks Select Finishes (late selection of interior finishes) 6 weeks Garage Doors (revise garage doors) 4 weeks ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 29 Tình huống áp dụng  Impacted As-Planned Method with Owner-Caused Delays  As-planned end date: 16 weeks; impacted as-planned with owner caused delays end date: 22 weeks.  The owner is responsible for 6 weeks of excusable compensable (EC) delays.  The contractor is liable for the remaining difference between the as-built schedule end date and the impacted as-planned schedule end date (24-22 = 2 weeks).  The contractor is responsible for liquidated damages for a 2- week period. ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 30 15
6. 7/7/2010 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 31 Tình huống áp dụng  Impacted As-Planned Method ◦ Impacted As-Planned with Contractor-Caused Delays The owner or his analyst adds the contractor-caused delays (Non-Excusable delays) to the as-planned schedule to assess their impacts in the overall project and determine the owner’s compensation. Summary of Contractor-Caused Delays House and Garage Walls (framing sub-contractor replacement) 3 weeks Garage Doors (late order of the garage door) 4 weeks Interior Finishes (increased duration of interior finishes) 2 weeks Garage Walls (extended duration of the garage walls) 1 week ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 32 16
7. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Impacted As-Planned Method with Contractor-Caused Delays  As-planned end date: 16 weeks; impacted as-planned with contractor caused delays end date: 21 weeks.  The contractor is responsible for 5 weeks of non-excusable delays, having to pay liquidated damages for this period.  Comparing the as-built schedule with the impacted as- planned schedule, there is a difference of 3 weeks (24 - 21 = 3 weeks) that are due to owner delays.  This period is charged as excusable compensable delay. ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 33 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 34 17
8. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Impacted As-Planned Method - RESULTS Impacted As-Planned with Owner Delays 6 weeks – Excusable Compensable delay 2 weeks – Non-Excusable delay Impacted As-Planned with Contractor Delays 5 weeks – Non-Excusable delay 3 weeks – Excusable Compensable delay ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 35 Tình huống áp dụng  Collapsed As-Built Method ◦ Collapsed As-Built But-For Owner-Caused Delays Remove the owner-caused delays that affect the critical path from the as-built schedule. The result will be the schedule that the contractor believes could have been accomplished if the owner delays had not occurred. The delays are removed one at a time, and the schedule is run to reflect the current critical path. Summary of Owner-Caused Delays Excavation (unforeseen rock) 3 weeks House Walls (windows reconsideration) 2 weeks Select Finishes (late selection of interior finishes) 6 weeks Garage Doors (revise garage doors) 4 weeks ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 36 18
9. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Collapsed As-Built Method But-For Owner-Caused Delays  Total duration of the collapsed schedule is 21 weeks.  This is the project duration that the contractor could have achieved but-for owner- caused delays.  The owner is responsible for the difference between the as-built end date and the collapsed as-built end date (24 – 21 = 3 weeks), which is an excusable compensable delay. ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 37 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 38 19
10. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Collapsed As-Built Method ◦ Collapsed As-Built But-For Contractor-Caused Delays The second analysis is from the owner’s perspective. The objective is to remove the contractor-caused delays that affect the critical path from the as-built schedule in order to achieve the as-built schedule that the owner believes could have been accomplished but-for the contractor’s delays. Summary of Contractor-Caused Delays House and Garage Walls (framing sub-contractor replacement) 3 weeks Interior Finishes (increased duration of interior finishes) 2 weeks Garage Doors (late order of the garage door) 4 weeks Garage Walls (extended duration of the garage walls) 1 week ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 39 Tình huống áp dụng  Collapsed As-Built Method But-For Contractor-Caused Delays  Total duration of the collapsed schedule is 22 weeks.  The contractor is responsible for the difference between the as-built end date and the collapsed as-built end date (24 – 22 = 2 weeks).  This is a non-excusable and the contractor has to pay liquid at ed d amages f or th e 2- week period. ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 40 20
11. 7/7/2010 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 41 Tình huống áp dụng  Collapsed As-Built Method - RESULTS Collapsed As-Built But-For Owner-Caused Delays 3 weeks – Excusable Compensable delay Collapsed As-Built But-For Contractor-Caused Delays 2 weeks – Non-Excusable delay ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 42 21
12. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Windows Method ◦ This method of delay analysis breaks the schedule into several time periods and examines the delays occurred in each window period separately. ◦ Window #1 (from W1 to W4) Summary of Delays Owner-Caused: Excavation (unforeseen rock) 3 weeks ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 43 Tình huống áp dụng  Windows Method - window #1 (from W1 to W4)  After the inclusion of this delay, the critical path still runs through the house activities, and the garage has 3 weeks of float.  The project end date moved from W16 to W19.  The select finishes activity did not begin at the as- planned date (W1) and therefore was moved to the beginning of the next window for later analysis. ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 44 22
13. 7/7/2010 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 45 Tình huống áp dụng  Windows Method - window #2 (from W5 to W8)  To create the second window, the results of the first window are used as the baseline schedule.  Between W5 and W8 no delays occurred, and therefore the project duration remains the same i. e. 19 weeks.  Two delayed activities did not start during this period and therefore they had to be moved to the beginning of the next window (select finishes activity and the fabrication and delivery of garage doors) ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 46 23
14. 7/7/2010 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 47 Tình huống áp dụng  Windows Method ◦ Window #3 (from W9 to W13) ◦ Using the resulting schedule of the previous window analysis as the baseline schedule, the delays for this period are added. Summary of Delays Owner-Caused: House Walls (windows reconsideration) 2 weeks Contractor-Caused: House and Garage Walls (framing sub-contractor replacement) 3 weeks ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 48 24
15. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Windows Method - window #3 (from W9 to W13)  Both the owner delay and the contractor delay of the house walls activity (windows reconsideration and replacement of sub- contractor) occurred at the same time during 2 weeks.  This is a concurrent delay, and therefore these 2 weeks are excusable non-compensable.  Since the replacement of the framing sub-contractor delay took 1 week longer than the reconsideration of windows, this week is considered a non- excusable delay. ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 49 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 50 25
16. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Windows Method ◦ Window #4 (from W14 to W17) ◦ Using the resulting schedule of the previous window analysis as the baseline schedule, the delays for this period are added. Summary of Delays CtContrac tor-CdCaused: Garage Walls 1 week ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 51 Tình huống áp dụng  Windows Method - window #4 (from W14 to W17)  Although the garage wall activity took one week longer than planned, the project end date did not change because this activity consumed existing float (was not in the critical path). ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 52 26
17. 7/7/2010 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 53 Tình huống áp dụng  Windows Method ◦ Window #5 (from W18 to W21) ◦ During this period the owner decided to revise the design of the garage doors, resulting in a delay of 4 weeks in this activity. No other delays occurred during this period. Summary of Delays Owner-CdCaused: Garage Doors (revise garage doors) 4 weeks ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 54 27
18. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Windows Method - window #5 (from W18 to W21)  The 4-week owner delayyy resulted only 2 weeks delay in the project end date, so the owner is charged 2 weeks for this delay.  No other delays occurred until the end of the project and therefore there is no need to analyze another window. ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 55 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 56 28
19. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Windows Method - RESULTS Delays Slip Windo Project Excusable Windo Durin Non- Excusable Delays w End Completio Non- w # g Excusabl Compensabl Description Date n Date Compensabl Period e e e Excavation 3 1 W4 W19 0 0 3 weeks (Unforeseen weeks rock) No delays 2 W8 W19 0 0 0 0 occurred Replacement of framing contractor 3 W13 W22 3 1 2 0 Reconsideration of house windows Garage walls is 4 W17 W22 0 0 0 0 not in the critical path Revise garage 5 W21 W24 2 0 0 2 doors TOTAL 8 2 2 5 ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 57 Tình huống áp dụng  Case Study Results As- Impacted As-Planned Planned Collapsed Windows DELAY TYPE vs. Owner Contracto As-Built Analysis As-Built Delays r Delays Non- Excusable Delay 3 weeks 2 weeks 5 weeks 2 weeks 1 week (Contractor caused) Excusable Non- Compensable 0 0 0 0 2 weeks (Concurrent del)lay) Excusable Compensable 5 weeks 6 weeks 3 weeks 3 weeks 5 weeks (Owner caused) ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 58 29
20. 7/7/2010 Tình huống áp dụng  Selection Criteria for Delay Analysis Methods Delay An a ly sis M ethod Cri teria / R equ ire d Data As -Plan n ed Impac ted Co llap sed Wi n dows Vs. As -B u ilt As -Plan n ed As -B u ilt As -planned sched u le nee d ed    As -bui lt schedu le n eeded    Take s in to a ccount d elay s by al l pa r ties  Take s in to a ccount concurren t de lays  Take s in to a ccount change s in cr it ical path   Take s in to a ccount float  Take s into a ccount non-conco tinuous work on  schedu le a c tiv ities Analy sis is a ccur ate  Analy sis r esu lts ar e r ealis ti c  Analy sis is e asy and q u ick to p erform    Analy sis is e asy to unders tand    Analy sis r esu lts ar e accep ted in court Usua lly  ©2010 của Nguyễn Duy Long, Tiến Sỹ 59 30