GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION

THE USE (OR MISUSE) OF A

PROSPECTIVE TIME IMPACT
ANALYSIS PROVISION IN A
FORENSIC ARENA:
A CASE STUDY
Brian Celeste, CCP, PSP, Associate Director, Navigant

ABSTRACT
Most construction scheduling specifications include provisions dealing with the request
for an extension of contract time. Many of these provisions require that the contractor
perform a “Time Impact Analysis” (TIA). While not always specified by name, contracts
can point generally toward requirements that a TIA is to be submitted in a prospective
manner (i.e., in advance of a change or delaying event) to establish entitlement for a
contract time extension. However, what happens when a time extension is not agreed
to contemporaneously and the contract does not specify how to deal with impacts in a
retrospective manner (i.e., after the occurrence of a change or delaying event)? Should a
schedule delay analyst utilize the contractually-mandated TIA provision when submitting
a claim or expert report? Should a Retrospective TIA be prepared? How does delay
mitigation play into the establishment and analysis of a TIA? This article examines the
answers to these questions, discusses the weaknesses of a Prospective TIA with regard
to determining compensability for delays, and provides a case-study regarding how an
expert could respond to or rebut a Prospective TIA analysis submitted “after-the-fact.”

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A TIA

A Time Impact Analysis (TIA) is a modeled method of analysis to aid in supporting
a request for an extension of contract time. As defined by AACE RP 52R-06, TIME
IMPACT ANALYSIS – AS APPLIED IN CONSTRUCTION, “[t]he TIA is a ‘forward-looking,’
prospective schedule analysis technique that adds a modeled delay to an accepted
contract schedule to determine the possible impact of that delay to project completion.”1

On the other hand, AACE RP 29R-03, FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS-2011 (29R-

03), which endeavors to classify and describe retrospective analyses, indicates that
some “Observational” analysis (Method Implementation Protocols (MIP 3.3, 3.4, 3.5) are
occasionally called “Time Impact Analysis” (TIA). However, most analysts consider TIA a
“Modeled” analysis (MIP 3.6, 3.7) [See Figure 1 on next page].2 Under the description of
MIP 3.6, commonly known as “Impacted As-Planned,” RP 29R-03 states: “MIP 3.6 can be
used prospectively or retrospectively.”

1. Calvey, Timothy T., and Winter, Ronald M. TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS – AS APPLIED IN CONSTRUCTION, AACE
International Recommended Practice, No. 52R-06 (2006), AACE International, Morgantown, W.V.
2. Hoshino, Kenji P., Livengood, John C., and Carson, Christopher W. FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS, AACE
International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 (2011), AACE International, Morgantown, W.V.
Figure 1. AACE RP29R-03 Forensic Schedule Anaylsis

1 RETROSPECTIVE
2 OBSERVATIONAL MODELED

3 Static Logic Dynamic Logic Additive Subtractive

Taxonomy
Contemporaneous Updates 3.5 Modified /
4 3.2 Periodic
(3.3 As-Is or 3.4 Split) Reconstructed Updates
3.6 Single Base2 3.7 Multi Base1 3.8 Single Simulation 3.9 Multi Simulation1

3.1
Variable
Fixed Variable Variable Global Stepped Fixed Global Stepped Fixed Stepped
5 Periods Windows
All Periods Grouped Periods Fixed Periods
Windows Insertion Insetion Periods
Windows or
Extraction Extraction Periods Extraction
Grouped

Contemporaneous Time Time

Contemporaneous Contemporaneous Window Window Time Impact Time Impact
Common As-Planned
Window Analysis
Period Analysis,
Period Analysis,
Time Impact
Period Analysis, Analysis
Impact As
Planned
Impact
Analysis,
Time
Impact
Analysis, Collapsed Analysis,
Impact
Analysis,
Analysis, Window
Names vs As-Built Time Impact
Analysis, Window
Analysis, Window
Time Impact
Analysis
Time Impact
Analysis
What-If Impacted Analysis
Impacted
As-Planned
As-Built Collapsed
As-Built
Collapsed
Anaylsis, Collapsed
As-Built
Analysis As-Planned As-Built

Footnotes

1. Contemporaneous or Modified / Reconstructed

2. The single base can be the original baseline or an update

In this regard, what is truly clear about the TIA methodology is Generally, there are five major steps in the procedure for
that distinguishing between the prospective and retrospective performing a prospective TIA:
applications of a TIA is not clearly defined amongst AACE’s
1. The analyst must first identify that there is a change or
Recommended Practices. When TIA is specified in a contract,
potential change in the work (e.g., change order, construction
what is a contractor, owner, or schedule analyst supposed to
bulletin, Request for Proposal, etc.) or a foreseeable potential
do? Is it appropriate to use in a retrospective situation? The
delaying event for which there may be entitlement to a time
answer generally lies in how it is specified in the contract. Taking
extension (i.e., a delaying event that might be critical and
a step back, let’s explore the definition of “Prospective” and
which may extend the projected date of project completion.)
“Retrospective” and explain the procedure necessary to perform
a TIA. Later paragraphs discuss scheduling specifications and 2. The contractor should identify the most recent, approved/
the applicability of using a TIA as a retrospective analysis. accepted schedule update, which we call the “unimpacted”
or “original” as-planned schedule.5 The contractor should
PROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS identify the activities in the schedule that may be affected
and the project completion date (or other milestone) to
The word “prospective” is defined by Merriam-Webster which delay is being measured.
Dictionary as “likely to come about: expected to happen.”3
3. The contractor should create a fragnet (or fragmentary
Accordingly, a prospective analysis is one prepared in advance
network of activities) to represent the delaying event or
of delaying events or change work, to model what is likely to
change work in question. The fragnet should be the analyst’s
happen as a result of the subject event(s). RP 29R-03 defines
best projection of the work activities required to complete
prospective analyses as:
the change work, or the best representation to model a
potential delay issue. It is noted that these fragnet activities
“Prospective analyses are performed in real-time prior to the delay are “projections” of work to be completed or impacts that
event or in real-time, contemporaneous with the delay event. In all may be encountered.
cases prospective analysis consists of the analyst’s best estimate
4. Determine how the developed fragnet “fits into” or is logically
of future events. Prospective analysis occurs while the project is
tied to the current schedule. The analyst should input the
still underway and may not evolve into a forensic context...”4
fragnet activities into a copy of the “unimpacted” schedule,
ensuring the fragnet’s first and/or last activities are tied to
other activities in that schedule. The result of this step is the
“impacted schedule.”

5. Reschedule the impacted schedule as of the same data date as the

“unimpacted schedule,” and determine the difference in project
completion (or other milestone to which a delay may be measured)
between the “unimpacted” and the “impacted” schedule.
3. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 28 June 2016.
4. RP 29R-03 (2011), p, 13.
5. To the extent the contractor’s schedule updates are not accepted, the contractor should follow the contractually required procedures for requesting a time extension, but may
need to work with the owner (or the party to which the schedules are submitted) to establish an accepted as-planned schedule for purposes of the TIA submission. To the extent
there is not a schedule proximate to the delaying event, a prudent analyst may (or may be required by the scheduling specification to) create an “interim” schedule closer to the
delaying event or change work in question.

2
The TIA should be submitted timely in accordance with the
contract requirements, presumably with a written narrative
explaining the issue in question, a listing and explanation of the
activity(ies), durations, and logic used to develop the fragnet,
the reasoning of the logical relationships tying this work into
the unimpacted schedule, and a calculation of the impact (the
difference between the completion date of the unimpacted
schedule vs. the impacted schedule.) This narrative may also
include, if required, a discussion of the contractor’s resources in
support of the activity durations to accomplish the change or
impacted work, and any potential mitigation of delay it might
have considered.
With regard to delay mitigation, the contractor should ensure
that the proposed fragnet takes into consideration alternate
ways to perform its work. In other words, it should look at the
schedule logic to determine whether the subject logic ties are
mandatory or preferential, and to the extent any relationships
are preferential, consider if there is a way to more efficiently
perform the work.
In this regard, it is noted that usually the function of a
Prospective TIA is to model a projection of an impact for
purposes of negotiation of a time extension. In general,
negotiations tend to be more successful if the model is realistic
and sufficient consideration is provided with regard to potential
contractor delay mitigation.
It is also noted that separate from this TIA submission
should be a negotiation regarding direct cost issues and/or
relief from liquidated damages. As will be discussed further
below, a Prospective TIA does not generally deal with delay
concurrency, and thus is a poor tool to definitively determine
delay compensability. Rather, because this is a negotiation tool,
both parties may agree to treat the delays as either excusable-
noncompensable or excusable-compensable, depending on the
outcome of the negotiations.
The determination of delay concurrency is a necessary
prerequisite to providing guidance as to whether a delay is
compensable or noncompensable. In this regard, while the TIA
process may be able to model various simultaneous impacts or
delays, the TIA process does not explicitly deal with concurrent
delay issues.
6. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 28 June 2016.
7. RP 29R-03 (2011), page 13.
8. Barba, Evans M. Prospective and Retrospective Time Impact Analysis, July 2005 Construction Briefings, Thompson/West, Eagan, Minn.
9. Robust Construction, LLC, ASBCA No. 54056, 2005-2 BCA 33019; Appeal of Ealahan Elect. Co., Inc., 90-3 BCA (CCH) ¶ 23177, D.O.T. Cont. Adj. Bd. 1990.; Titan Pacific Const. Corp.,
ASBCA No. 24616, 87-1 BCA 19,626, 17 Cl.Ct. 630, 89 F.2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 1990).; and Gulf Contracting, Inc., ASBCA No. 30195 89-2 BCA 22814 (1989).
10. It is possible, however, that a “Retrospective TIA” could be required by contract to resolve all time-related disputes.
11. Lifschitz, Judah, et al., A Critical Review of the AACEI Recommended Practice (2009).
12. Petrov, Maria, and Vara, Carlos Manuel, CDR.S03—Retrospective or Prospective Delay Analysis in My REA – Should I Be Concerned About It?, 2008 AACE International
Transactions, AACE International, Morgantown, W.V.
3
To the extent the change work or delay event cannot fully
estimate delay as of the issuance of the TIA (due to unknowns,
complexities, or other issues), the contractor’s best strategy is
to provide notice to the owner of the issues it is experiencing.
Furthermore, if delay issues are not settled contemporaneously
and the project ends up in a claim situation (be it a Request for
Equitable Adjustment (REA), or a claim in court or arbitration),
a Retrospective Analysis may need to be performed to establish
entitlement to a contract time extension, delay damages, relief
from liquidated damages, or other impact costs.
RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS
Retrospective is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “of
or relating to the past or something that happened in the past.” 6
Thus, a retrospective analysis is one prepared after the delaying
event(s) or change work has been performed, such that the
actual sequence, timing, and resources of the work related to the
subject event(s) is known.
RP 29R-03 defines Retrospective analyses as:7
“Retrospective analyses are performed after the delay event has
occurred and the impacts are known. The timing may be soon
after the delay event but prior to the completion of the overall
project, or after the completion of the entire project... In other
words, even forward-looking analysis methods implemented
retrospectively have the full benefit of hindsight at the option
of the analyst.” [Emphasis added]
The key, as emphasized in the RP 29R-03 definition above, is
a retrospective analysis is performed with the “full benefit of
hindsight.” A Retrospective TIA, in general terms, is a method
of analysis in which, after the delaying event has occurred, an
“as-built” fragnet is inserted into a planned schedule.8 This is
a similar procedure, and has similar flaws, to the hypothetical
“impacted as-planned” analysis that courts and boards of
contract appeal have rejected as an inappropriate forensic
schedule methodology.9
There is some evidence from court and board decisions, to
conclude that a Retrospective TIA should generally not be used
in a forensic evaluation and that an observational method of
analysis to determine what actually occurred on the project’s as-
built critical path, should be utilized.10, 11, 12
The importance of “hindsight” in this regard is that the contractor or schedule analyst
should be able to analyze the true nature of project impacts on the project’s as-built
critical path and should not have to perform a modeled analysis. A windows analysis (or
an as-planned vs. as-built) can be a more reliable forensic delay analysis tool, as it deals
with the critical and near-critical path activities without the need to model individual
delay events, of which there are many on a typical project. Furthermore, a windows or
as-planned vs. as-built analysis “allows the analyst to determine which delay impacts are
concurrent, which are staggered, and which are near critical versus precisely critical with
less subjectivity than if only projected dates were used.”13

So, what happens if a Prospective TIA is required by contract to deal with time
extensions, negotiations of time extensions during the course of a project fail, and an
after-the-fact delay-related claim or REA needs to be submitted for arbitration or trial?

Outside of recommendations regarding proper documentation and notice, and adhering

to the requirements of the contract in this regard as discussed above, the author
recommends that when choosing which type of analysis to perform in a retrospective
situation, the first place to go is the contract. Does the contract offer any guidance as
to what type of analysis is required in a forensic environment? The analyst should also
consult with Section 5 of AACE RP29R-03 that has an extensive discussion of how to
choose a methodology.

SCHEDULING SPECIFICATION EXAMPLE

Let’s look at a sample contract provision specifying a TIA to see if any guidance may
be provided.

Figure 2. Sample TIA Specification14

1.1 Time Impact Analysis

Should the Contractor believe it is entitled to an extension of the contract time, or if

the Contracting Officer requests a change for which a time extension may be required,
the Contractor shall prepare and submit wihtin 10 days of the identification of a
delaying event, change in the work, or RFP from the Government, a prospective time
impact analysis for approval by the contracting officer. The Contractor shall utilize a
copy of the last accepted schedule prior to the first day of the impact for the time
impact schedule and the first day of impact is too great, the contractor shall prepare
an iterim updated schedule to perform the time impact analysis.

The Contractor shall prepare a proposed fragnet for its time impact analysis which
shall consist of a sequence of new activities that are proposed to be added to project
milestones. The Contractor shall clearly identify how the proposed fragnet is to
be tied into the project schedule including all predecessors and successors to the
fragnet activities. The proposed fragnet shall be approved by the Government prior to
incorporation into the project schedule.

Unless approved by the Contracting Officer, no other changes will be incorporated into
the schedule being used to justify the time impact.

13. Livengood, John C., CDR.08—Retrospective TIAs: Time to Lay Them to Rest, 2007 AACE international
Transactions, AACE International, Morgantown, W.V.
14. Specification example adapted from referenced sample project.

4
In the example specification, above, there are some key statements that provide
guidance that this prospective TIA process should be utilized during the course of the
project to resolve time extension requests. Specifically, the specification indicates that
the analysis should be “prepare[d] and submit[ted] within 10 days of the identification
of a delaying event...” Furthermore, the specification indicates specifically that the TIA
should be “prospective” in nature.

To make the specification clearer and better defined that the TIA methodology should
be utilized only during the project in a prospective manner, language similar to the
following could be added to this specification:

“The fragnet should not include as-built data, as the time impact analysis is to be solely
prospective in nature. This TIA methodology identified above shall be utilized only
during the course of the project to request time extensions, and not retrospectively in a
forensic environment to determine entitlement to a time extension or delay damages.”

Conversely, the specification could require that the Prospective TIA methodology be
utilized during and after the project is over, or a could require a Retrospective TIA for
forensic use.15

Even if the contract requires a prospective TIA, it could generally aid a schedule analyst
to explore the use of an observational analysis approach. The reason for this is the
determination of delay compensability. During the project, a contractor is generally
looking for an extension of time, as a negotiation. In an after-the-fact situation, an
analyst should rely on the best information available, which is generally as-built data
from daily, weekly, and monthly reports, meeting minutes, pay applications, etc., rather
than projections of hypothetical events. Without a retrospective, observational analysis
taking into consideration what actually happened on the Project, what the as-built
critical path of the Project is, and what competing or concurrent delays may have
occurred, the analysis may not provide the trier of fact with a proper understanding of
the actual impacts on the project.16

In summary, the scheduling specifications should be clear as to when and how a TIA is to
be prepared and submitted, what is required in the submission, and should specifically
state that the TIA is to be prospective and/or retrospective in nature. While there is
dispute as to whether a Retrospective TIA is the most appropriate and proper analysis to
perform a delay analysis, the scheduling specification should be clear as to whether the
analysis methodology should govern the after-the-fact resolution of time-related disputes.

In this regard, the following case study is presented based on competed litigation
regarding the construction of a hospital with which the author of this paper was involved.
The author of this paper’s firm was retained by the owner to prepare a schedule delay
analysis regarding delays on the project and to respond to the contractor’s schedule delay
expert’s submission. The contractor’s schedule delay expert submitted prospective TIAs
(slightly modified from those submitted contemporaneously by its client) as its expert
time-based analysis, justifying its analysis methodology choice by referring to the TIA
requirements in the contract. The case study below discusses the subject scheduling
specification, the contractor’s expert’s TIA submission, and how the author analyzed and
responded to the contractor’s expert’s forensically submitted TIA submissions.

15. Barba, Evans M. Prospective and Retrospective Time Impact Analysis, (2005).
16. Lifschitz, Judah, et al. A Critical Review of the AACEI Recommended Practice (2009).

5
CASE STUDY EXAMPLE
During the construction of a design-bid-build hospital project,
a bulletin was issued by the designer, modifying the mechanical
design for a portion of the building. The Government issued an
RFP (request for proposal) to the contractor to address any
direct cost and time extension it feels it may be entitled to. The
scheduling specification provided the following with regard to
the required TIA procedure:
Figure 3. Sample TIA Specification
1.1 Time Impact Analysis
Should the Contractor believe it is entitled to an extension
of the contract time, or if the Contracting Officer requests
a change for which a time extension may be required, the
Contractor shall prepare and submit wihtin 10 days of the
identification of a delaying event, change in the work, or RFP
from the Government, a prospective time impact analysis for
approval by the contracting officer. The Contractor shall utilize
a copy of the last accepted schedule prior to the first day of
the impact for the time impact schedule and the first day of
impact is too great, the contractor shall prepare an iterim
updated schedule to perform the time impact analysis.
After the contractor achieved Substantial Completion
significantly late, the contractor submitted an REA, requesting
delay and impact damages along with a time extension
request in order to release its withheld liquidated damages.
This REA was rejected by the Contracting Officer, and the
Contractor elected to certify its claim and enter into litigation
as contemplated under the Disputes clause of the contract.
The Contractor hired a schedule delay expert to analyze the
project and submit an expert report regarding its findings
and conclusions. The Contractor’s expert, pointing to the
TIA provision of the contract in Figure 3 above, which is the
only guidance provided by the contract as to how to handle
requests for extensions of time, submitted an analysis based
on Prospective TIA, which was slightly modified from those
submitted contemporaneously by the Contractor.
As our firm was engaged as the Government’s schedule delay
analysis expert, I was tasked to review, analyze, and respond
to the Contractor’s delay analysis expert’s report. My initial
commentary was regarding the specification to which the
Contractor’s expert pointed. There was no language in the
specification that required the analyst to submit prospective
analyses for “all time-related disputes, both during and after the
project,” nor did the specification direct the analyst to perform
any specific type of analysis in a forensic arena.

The Contractor shall prepare a proposed fragnet for its time

This matter was in litigation and it was ultimately up to the
impact analysis which shall consist of a sequence of new
trier of fact to determine what type of analysis is required or
activities that are proposed to be added to project milestones.
helpful in considering the facts of the case and the contract
The Contractor shall clearly identify how the proposed
requirements. As discussed previously, the author of this paper
fragnet is to be tied into the project schedule including all
recommends an observational method of analysis be performed
predecessors and successors to the fragnet activities. The
in retrospective situations. An observational retrospective
proposed fragnet shall be approved by the Government prior
analysis such as a windows analysis (AACE RP29R-03 MIP 3.3 or
to incorporation into the project schedule.
3.4) or as-planned vs. as-built (AACE RP29R-03 MIP 3.1 or 3.2)
has the significant advantage of determining what work was
Unless approved by the Contracting Officer, no other changes
on the actual as-built critical path of the project and can help
will be incorporated into the schedule being used to justify the
determine delay compensability.
time impact.

In this regard, for my affirmative analysis, I performed a windows

The Contractor submitted a proposal for direct cost, extended
analysis, also known as a “contemporaneous period analysis”
general conditions and overhead, along with a prospective
(AACE RP29R-03 MIP 3.3). This is a chronological and cumulative
TIA submission requesting additional time. The Government
approach to analysis that marches through time and endeavors
accepted the direct cost component of the proposal but denied
to determine the as-built critical path on the project and to
the request for an extension of time and delay damages.
apportion the source, magnitude, causation, and responsibility of
The Contractor provided notice that it disagreed with the
the associated critical delays to the responsible parties.
Government’s rejection of the extension of time, but continued
to perform the change work. Several additional bulletins and
However, because the trier of fact would ultimately decide what
RFIs are issued during the performance of the Work on the
type of analysis may or may not be required by contract, we felt
project for which the Contractor requested additional contract
it necessary to review the individual prospective TIAs submitted
time, each of which were rejected by the Government.
by the Contractor’s expert on their face to determine if the
issues in question delayed the project and if prospective TIAs
established any delay to the project.

6
In this regard, for purposes of this case study, we will look at the TIA prepared for Bulletin 1. The figure below depicts a summary of the
original “unimpacted” schedule with a data date of 03-Sep-12:

Figure 4. Summary of original “unimpacted” schedule

As can be seen, the critical path runs through the Main building area (Framing and Electrical Rough-in 1st Floor, and Electrical Rough-in
and Drywall 2nd Floor) with the Ancillary building on a near critical path of 18 workdays.

The Contractor created and inserted a four-activity fragnet (Activities F1000, F1010, F1020, and F1030), tied to the commencement of
Activity A2440 “Ancillary 1st Flr Install Electrical Equipment” into this schedule representing the Contractor’s contemporaneous forecast
(using “foresight” durations) for the additional generator work required in the Ancillary building area.

Figure 5. “Impacted” schedule containing insertion of Fragnet

7
The insertion of the Bulletin 1 fragnet used up the available float in the Ancillary building area, causing this area to become critical.
Furthermore, this TIA had the effect of pushing the projected date of Substantial Completion from 11-Dec-12, to 30-Jan-13, a projected
delay of 50 calendar days for which the Contractor (and Contractor’s expert) requested a 50-calendar day compensable time extension.

It is noted that a prospective TIA should generally be submitted in advance of a delaying event or change for purposes of negotiating
a time extension. In this case, a prospective TIA was submitted after the fact, leading me to review several aspects of the submission.
Most importantly, it is necessary to look at how the change/delay work was actually performed, what was driving the as-built critical
path to project completion during this period of time, what was the true delay on the project during the impacted period, and what was
actually causing this delay on the Project.

In this regard, in order to evaluate this and each of the other prospective TIAs that were submitted after the fact, the author first looked at
daily reports and actual dates included in subsequent schedule updates to determine the as-built durations and sequencing of the change
work. This helped us determine if the original fragnet durations and logical relationships were reasonable and realistic, if the Contractor
followed the plan indicated in the TIA submission or if the Contractor was able to work out of sequence to mitigate some potential delay.

Comparing the as-planned fragnet to the as-built of the schedule revealed several important things. First, it appears that the Contractor
worked significantly out of sequence compared to the projection from the TIA. The Contractor did not wait until the Bulletin 1 change
work was performed to commence the original contract work in the Ancillary building area. As a result, the Contractor did not
experience delay in this area as it projected in its TIA.

Figure 6. Comparison between original “as planned” Fragnet vs “as-built” Fragnet

Main Building Area –

as-planned non-critical

Ancillary Building Area –

as-planned critical

Main Building Area –

delayed electrical rough-
in becomes critical

Ancillary Building
Area – becomes
non-critical

8
Second, a review of the original contract electrical rough-in
work revealed that it was significantly delayed during this period
of time. As a result, the project’s critical path continued to run
through the Main building area, and the Ancillary building area
has 42 workdays of float.
It is noted that contemporaneously, the Contractor may not have
had any idea of the impending electrical delays on the project.
The submitted prospective mechanical Bulletin 1 TIA would not
have captured any potential electrical delays if they were not
known as of the submission date, to no fault of the Contractor.
If the Contractor and Government were able to negotiate a
resolution to the requested time extension, the project would
move on and the Contractor would be entitled to what was
agreed to between the parties. However, once the work is
completed and as-built data is available, the actual delays and
sequence of work should be analyzed and the party that actually
caused critical delay on the Project should be held responsible.
I also performed a windows analysis for the project to determine
what work was on the as-built critical path to Project Completion
during this period of time. In this regard, consistent with the
analysis of the fragnet above, the electrical rough-in work in the
Main building area was driving and critically delaying the as-built
critical path of work during the Bulletin 1 “impact period.”
Furthermore, I looked at the schedule updates during this period
of time to see what work was on the projected longest paths for
each update and if the Contractor was truly delayed to the extent
it claims in its prospective TIA. Consistent with the windows
analysis and determination of the as-built critical path, the
schedule updates indicated that, although the project appeared
to be delayed during the Bulletin 1 “impacted period,” the
electrical rough-in work in the Main building area was critical and
that work was actually delaying the Project during that time, and
not the activities identified in the Contractor’s prospective TIA. I
also reviewed the available Project information (e.g., daily reports,
correspondence, meeting minutes, etc.) and determined there
were no assertions made by the Contractor or other evidence of
the Contractor “pacing” its work because of this change.
17. RP29R-03 (2001) includes a detailed section on how to choose the best methodology for the situation
9
Analyzing and presenting the relevant data thoroughly and
succinctly to a trier of fact will help to establish entitlement to a
requested extension of time and/or delay damages. It is noted
that while the Contractor may have experienced other impact
damages (i.e., acceleration costs or loss of productivity) related
to Bulletin 1, the analysis indicates Bulletin 1 did not cause a
critical path delay and the Contractor should not be entitled to a
time extension or delay-related damages as a result.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, a Prospective TIA can have significant value
during a project to contemporaneously deal with the negotiation
of a request for an extension of contract time, particularly if
performed in conformance with AACE RP 52R-06, TIME IMPACT
ANALYSIS – AS APPLIED IN CONSTRUCTION. However, a
Prospective TIA only deals with an estimate of what might
happen on a project in advance of the delays actually unfolding
and does not generally take into consideration concurrent delays
and compensability matters. In a retrospective situation, an
analyst should deal with the best information available, as-built
data, and prepare an observational analysis to establish the
as-built critical path to project completion and to apportion
the source, magnitude, causation and responsibility of the
associated critical delays to the responsible parties. An
exception to this may be when a contract requires the use of a
particular type of analysis in a retrospective or forensic situation.
In such cases, it is advisable to perform both the Prospective TIA
and a more appropriate retrospective analysis.17
It is important for a schedule delay analysis to take into
consideration delay mitigation. In a prospective analysis,
potential mitigation should be accounted for in the development
of a fragnet and addressed during negotiations. Retrospectively,
contractor mitigation should be analyzed to determine the true
effect of any delays in question.
While the author does not generally consider a TIA (either
prospective or retrospective) to be the most appropriate and
proper analysis to perform in a retrospective, forensic delay
analysis, a scheduling specification should be clear if contract
requires a TIA methodology to govern the after-the-fact
resolution of time-related disputes.
CONTACTS To the extent, as a delay analyst, you encounter prospective TIA’s
submitted retrospectively, the main course of action should be:

1. Determine whether the subject impacts truly delayed the as-built critical
BRIAN CELESTE, CCP, PSP
path to Project Completion
Associate Director
215.832.4473 2. Whether the TIA fragnet activities were reasonable in sequencing and
brian.celeste@navigant.com
duration to the as-built record of that work

3. Whether there were any concurrent or competing delays that may offset
navigant.com the compensability of delays

4. Whether the submission meets the contractual requirements regarding

the request for an extension of time

About Navigant As a contractor or contractor’s analyst planning to submit a TIA in a

retrospective or forensic situation, if required or otherwise desired, these
Navigant Consulting, Inc. (NYSE: NCI) is a
same guidelines should be followed in order to provide the reviewer or trier of
specialized, global professional services firm
fact the most reasonable and accurate presentation of impacts on the project.
that helps clients take control of their future.
Navigant’s professionals apply deep industry
Finally, as in any schedule delay analysis, the main consideration should
knowledge, substantive technical expertise,
be to determine cause and effect — with causation necessary to establish
and an enterprising approach to help clients
entitlement, and, if available, an analysis to demonstrate the actual effect
build, manage, and/or protect their business
on the work.
interests. With a focus on markets and clients
facing transformational change and significant
regulatory or legal pressures, the firm primarily
serves clients in the healthcare, energy, and
financial services industries. Across a range
of advisory, consulting, outsourcing, and
technology/analytics services, Navigant’s
practitioners bring sharp insight that pinpoints
opportunities and delivers powerful results.
More information about Navigant can be
found at navigant.com.

©2017 Navigant Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. 00007078B

linkedin.com/company/navigant
twitter.com/navigant
Navigant Consulting, Inc. (“Navigant”) is not a certified public accounting or audit firm. Navigant does not provide audit,
attest, or public accounting services. See navigant.com/about/legal for a complete listing of private investigator licenses.
This publication is provided by Navigant for informational purposes only and does not constitute consulting services or tax
or legal advice. This publication may be used only as expressly permitted by license from Navigant and may not otherwise be
reproduced, recorded, photocopied, distributed, displayed, modified, extracted, accessed, or used without the express written
permission of Navigant.