Turkce Cok Iyi Odtu Tez Gecikme Analizleri PDF
Turkce Cok Iyi Odtu Tez Gecikme Analizleri PDF
Turkce Cok Iyi Odtu Tez Gecikme Analizleri PDF
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
SONGL DAYI
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE
DECEMBER 2010
SCHEDULE DELAY ANALYSIS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: A CASE STUDY USING TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS METHOD
Submitted by SONGL DAYI in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Building Science in Architecture Department, Middle East Technical University by,
Prof. Dr. Canan zgen __________________ Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gven Arif Sargn Head of Department, Architecture Assoc. Prof. Dr. Soofia Tahira Elias Ozkan Supervisor, Architecture Dept., METU __________________
__________________
Examining Committee Members: Asst. Prof. Dr. Aye Tavukuolu Architecture Dept., METU Assoc. Prof. Dr. Soofia Tahira Elias Ozkan Architecture Dept., METU Asst. Prof. Dr. Ali Murat Tanyer Architecture Dept., METU Asst. Prof. Dr. Nee Dikmen Architecture Dept., SD Instr. Dr. Ayem Berrin akmakl Architecture Dept., METU __________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
Date:
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.
Signature
iii
ABSTRACT
SCHEDULE DELAY ANALYSIS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: A CASE STUDY USING TIME IMPACT ANALYSIS METHOD
Day, Songl M.Sc., in Building Science, Department of Architecture Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Soofia Tahira Elias Ozkan
Inadequate or weak preparatory work before starting construction of any structure may cause serious problems during the construction period. For example, projects without sufficient detailed drawings or construction schedules and a disorganized building site can create many problems in the management and completion of the construction works. Consequently, the cost of construction increases digressively, the construction duration of the project extends and the quality of construction is affected adversely. This study dwells on the importance of construction schedules in achieving the aim of producing good quality construction work within the specified duration. Monitoring continuously the interactive relation concerning delays in construction schedules and contractor demands is a complicated process. Here the simplest and basic approach is that, both for owner and contractor, time is money and for this reason construction schedule delays should be analyzed and corrective measures should be taken in a timely manner. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the causes of construction schedule delays and the methods of schedule delay analyses. In this context completion construction works of a
iv
covered swimming pool building in Ankara was selected as a case study for analyzing project scheduling and the delays therein. The Time Impact Analysis Method (TIA) was applied to the case study project using PRIMAVERA software in order to determine the construction schedule delays; to measure the impacts of these delays on the project completion duration; and to allocate responsibility amongst the project participants for preventing delay claims.
After the application of the delay analysis it was observed that the delays in the critical activities extended the project duration by 57 days in total i.e. by 15.4 % of the estimated construction period. Fines should have been paid by the contractor because of 31-days non-excusable delays. Also, the contractor should have been given a time extension of 26-days due to 22-days excusable compensable delays and 4-days excusable non-compensable delays which were beyond the control of the contractor. These delays were caused due to organizational deficiencies of the owner, the bureaucracy of the provincial municipality, the lack of detail drawings during the municipality application, the lack of experience of the contractor, problems in material procurement, unforeseeable weather conditions and shortages of qualified employees of the subcontractors. It was observed that of these all except one correspond to the important causes of delays as reported in literature concerning public projects in Turkey.
Keywords: Construction Management, Construction Delays, Schedule Analysis, Project Scheduling, Time Impact Analysis Method.
Z NAAT PROJELERNDE PROGRAMI GECKME ANALZ: ZAMAN ETKS ANALZ METODUNU KULLANARAK RNEK BR ALIMA
Day, Songl Yksek Lisans, Yap Bilimleri, Mimarlk Blm Tez Yneticisi: Do. Dr. Soofia Tahira Elias zkan Aralk 2010, 91 sayfa
Bir yapnn inaatna balamadan nce baz n almalarn yetersiz veya eksik yaplmas, inaat aamasnda nemli sorunlarn domasna neden olabilmektedir. rnein, proje detaylarnn eksik hazrlanmas, antiye organizasyonunun dzgn yaplmamas veya inaat i programnn detayl ve dzgn hazrlanmamas inaat srasnda eitli sorunlar gndeme getirmektedir. Sonuta inaatn maliyeti gereksiz bir ekilde artmakta, iin gerekleme sresi uzamakta ve yapnn kalitesi olumsuz ynde etkilenmektedir. Bu alma, inaat i programlarnn kaliteli bir yapnn belirlenen sre ierisinde imalatnn yaplabilmesindeki nemi zerinde durmaktadr. programlarndaki gecikmelere ilikin etkileimin ve yklenici taleplerinin srekli takip edilmesi olduka karmak bir sretir. Burada en basit ve en temel yaklam, hem iveren hem de yklenici asndan zamann para demek olduunu unutmamak; bu nedenle, gecikmelerin derhal analiz edilip gerekli nlemlerin zamannda alnabilmesini salamaktr. Bu almann temel amac, inaat srecinde yaanan i programndaki gecikmeleri, nedenlerini ve bunlar analiz etme yntemlerini aratrmaktr. Bu kapsamda Ankarada bulunan bir kapal yzme havuzu binasnn ikmal inaat, proje programn ve zerindeki gecikmeleri analiz etme asndan
vi
rnek
alma
olarak
seildi.
Zaman
Etkisi
Analiz
yntemi
(TIA)
PRIMAVERA bilgisayar program kullanlarak rnek proje zerinde uyguland. naat i program gecikmelerini aratrp ortaya karmak, bu gecikmelerin proje biti sresi zerindeki etkilerini lmek ayn zamanda proje katlmclar arasnda gecikmelerin sorumluluunu paylatrmak elde edilmek istenen amalardr. Metodun uygulanmas sonrasnda kritik aktivitelerin zerinde oluan gecikmelerin proje sresini toplamda 57 gn dier bir deyile 15,4 % orannda uzatt izlendi. 31 gnlk mazur grlemez gecikme karlnda ykleniciye para cezas uygulanmas gerektii belirlendi. Ayrca 22 gnlk mazur grlebilir tazmin edilebilir gecikme ve 4 gnlk mazur grlebilir ama tazmin edilemez gecikmelerin toplam olarak 26 gn ykleniciye sre uzatm verilmesi gerektii belirlendi. Btn bu gecikmelerin sebepleri, iverenin yer teslimi srasndaki organizasyon eksiklikleri, yerel belediyeden kaynaklanan brokratik skntlar, belediyeye bavuru srasnda detay izimlerinin eksik olmas, yklenicinin taeronlarla arasndaki organizasyon eksiklikleri, malzeme tedarikindeki problemler, tahmin edilemeyen hava koullarnn olumas ve taeron firmalardaki kalifiye eleman eksiklii olarak belirlendi. Bu gecikme sebeplerinden tahmin edilemeyen hava koullar hari hepsinin Trkiye inaat sektrndeki kamu projelerinde oluan nemli gecikme sebepleri ile akt gzlemlendi.
Anahtar Kelimeler: naat Ynetimi, naat Gecikmeleri, Program Analizi, Proje Programlamas, Zaman Etkisi Analizi Metodu.
vii
To my late father, and to my husband, and our dearest son; with love
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would especially like to thank my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Soofia Tahira Elias Ozkan, for her guidance, criticism, unforgettable helpfulness, encouragement and valuable insight during the entire study. It has been a great pleasure and honor to work with her.
I would also like to thank the examining committee members, for their invaluable ideas. Thanks to my friends Glen Dili and Elvan Odaba for their continual support during this study. I am also deeply thankful to all my friends for their motivation, interest and love. I would like to thank my most-beloved parents, Merref and Mehmet Ali Bal, and my sisters Vahide Bal and Birgl Yldz for their endless support, great sacrifices, never-ending love and encouragement not only during my thesis study, but also throughout my life. I gratefully thank my husband and my best friend, Ahmet Day, for his endless support, immeasurable assistance, patience and love.
Finally, special thanks are for my one year old son, Adnan Yusuf, for letting mommy work on her thesis.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...iv Z...vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..ix LIST OF TABLES.xii LIST OF FIGURES..xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...xiv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION..1 1.1. Argument.....1 1.2. Objectives........3 1.3. Procedure.....3 1.4. Disposition.......4 2. LITERATURE SURVEY.......6 2.1. Construction Project Planning.........6 2.2. Project Scheduling...........8 2.3. The Objectives of Project Scheduling .....9 2.4. Construction Schedule Delays............10 2.4.1. Causes of Construction Delays....11 2.4.2. Types of Construction Delays......17 2.4.2.1.Critical versus Noncritical Delays.....................20 2.4.2.2.Excusable versus Non-excusable Delays...........21 2.4.2.3.Compensable versus Non-compensable Delays.....23 2.4.2.4.Concurrent Delays..........24 2.4.3. Schedule Delay Analysis..........27 2.4.3.1.Tools to Quantify Delay Impacts...27 a) Bar Charts...27 b) Critical Path Method......28
2.4.3.2.Schedule Delay Analysis Techniques........29 a) As-planned versus as-built method.............32 b) Impacted as-planned method...........................33 c) Collapsed as-built method...........33 d) Window analysis method............34 e) Time impact analysis method..........................38 2.4.4. Other Techniques of Schedule Delay Analysis................39 2.4.5. Main Principles for Analyzing Schedule Delays.....................40 2.4.6. Float and Criticality in Project Schedules45 2.4.7. Selection of Delay Analysis Methodology..46 3. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY.....48 3.1. Material ..........48 3.2. Methodology...........50 3.2.1. Collection of Information and Data ....51 3.2.2. Determination of Causes, Types and Liability of Delays ...51 3.2.3. Conducting the Schedule Delay Analysis with TIA....54 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............56 4.1. Determination of Delays ........56 4.2. Allocation of Liability to Parties and Determining Types of Delays..59 4.3. Schedule Delay Analysis with TIA ....61 4.4. Concluding Remarks...63 5. CONCLUSION..65 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................68 APPENDICES A. LIST OF CAUSES OF DELAY FROM LITERATURE .............72 B. PRIMAVERA SCHEDULES ...79
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 2.1
Table 2.2 Summary of previous studies on causes of delay Table 2.3 Divergent and inconsistent perspectives on concurrent delays Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 2.8 Table 2.9 Names of existing delay analysis methodologies (DAMs) As-Planned Schedule As-Built Schedule 10 Day Extended Duration of Activity A 5 Day Late Start of Activity B 10 Day Delay Due to Interruptions to Activity C
Table 2.10 No Delay to Activity D Table 2.11 As-Planned vs As-Built Schedule Table 2.12 Summary of Delays Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Summary of Delay Identification Summary of Allocation of Liability to Parties and Delay Types Matrix of Construction Delays According to the Compensability Results of Primavera Software Application Allocation of Project Delays to Parties Summary of Project Delays According to Compensability
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Delay Categories Figure 2.2 Delay Classification Figure 2.3 Project Delays Classification Figure 2.4 Concurrent Delay Representation Figure 2.5 Mapping of Forensic Schedule Analysis Techniques Figure 2.6 Chronological Analysis Figure 2.7 Diagram of As-Planned versus As-Built Method Figure 2.8 Summary of Windows Schedule Analysis Results Figure 3.1 Working Diagram of the Case Study Project Figure 3.2 Critical Path Method of the Case Study Project
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
CCD CD CDCA CPM CR DA DAM DAMUDS ED ECD ENCD EF FLORA IAP IAC IDT NCD NED OCD OR RII TIA TPCD UAE
Contractor Caused Delays Concurrent Delays Computerized Delay Claims Analysis Critical Path Method Contractor Related Delay Analysis Delay Analysis Methodologies Delay Analysis Method Using Delay Section Excusable Delays Excusable Compensable Delays Excusable Non-compensable Delays External Factor Float, Logic, and Resource Allocation Impacted As-planned Impacted Activity Code Isolated Delay Type Non-concurrent Delays Non-excusable Delays Owner Caused Delays Owner Related Relative Importance Index Time Impact Analysis Third Party Caused Delays United Arab Emirates
xiv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the argument for and the objectives of the study are presented, together with a brief overview of its procedure. The chapter is concluded with the disposition of the various chapters within the thesis.
1.1 Argument
Planning and control of resources within the framework of a project is the main target of construction management. Construction management procedures guide managers about how the resources can be best used during construction process and aims for the timely and efficient application of the resources in construction projects. Many issues should be carefully thought in order to conduct a project successfully (Halpin, Woodhead, 1998). Construction site activities are only the second part of the whole construction process. The first part is comprised of all kinds of office work. The planning, designing, estimating, negotiating, purchasing, scheduling, controlling, accounting, etc. should be done carefully in the office before the work starts on the site to accomplish the objective of a quality project within budget and on schedule.
Construction delays are widespread in most projects around the world. Some delays may happen in the preconstruction phase which is defined as the period beginning from the initial conception of the project to the signing of the contract
between the owner and the contractor; however some of them may happen in the construction phase that is the period when actual construction is under way. Project schedules are consistently dynamic and uncertain. Several controllable and uncontrollable factors can adversely affect the project schedule and cause delays. These delays definitely create negative impacts on project performance. Schedule delay in the completion of a construction project may be a major difficulty for contractors leading to costly disputes and adverse relationships between project participants. The challenge is to measure the net impact of construction delays accurately. Otherwise, there may appear delay claims between all parties involved in the construction process. The method of schedule delay analysis technique should be acceptable to all participants through the project.
There are many studies on construction schedule delays and several techniques are proposed for analyzing schedule delays. Schedule delay analysis is used in order to identify delays and to measure the net impacts of delays on a project. Basic tools which are used in the schedule analysis are known as bar chart schedules and critical path method (CPM) schedules. As stated before, many articles have presented common schedule analysis techniques and some of them also have proposed new methodologies to the construction industry. However, there is no single method used for all kind of delay claims that is applicable in all kind of projects since each of the technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. Common methodologies covered in the literature are; As-planned versus as-built, Impacted as-planned, Collapsed as-built, Window analysis, and Time impact analysis. These methods were studied and one of them was applied to the case study project.
Delays in the completion of construction projects are often unavoidable. The project schedule which is planned at the beginning of the project is prone to being changed for many times and unfortunately causes delays. As a result, schedule delays may be a major problem for contractors as well as the owners, resulting in costly disputes, controversial issues and adverse relationships between all the
project participants. Therefore, the identification, quantification and analysis of delays become essential. Contractors are prone to see most of the delays in the responsibility of the owner, while owners usually want to put the blame on the contractor or third parties. Consequently, it is necessary to analyze schedule delays and research the most significant causes of delay in construction projects to avoid or minimize their adverse impacts on the project and project participants.
1.2 Objectives
The main objective of this research was to apply the most appropriate schedule delay analysis technique to the case study project in order to analyze the net impacts of construction delays on project completion duration and to allocate responsibility amongst the project participants for such delays. The other objectives of the study were:
To study and understand project scheduling, To determine the major types of construction delays, To determine general causes of construction delays through a literature survey, To study the common schedule delay analysis techniques, To measure the impacts of construction delays on an as-planned project schedule and discuss the results.
1.3 Procedure
The study was designed to apply the most appropriate schedule delay analysis technique on the case study project. At first a literature survey was carried out on pertinent topics based on theses, books in libraries, scientific papers, articles and
web sources. This literature survey was carried out on construction schedule delays, causes of schedule delays, their types, and schedule delay analysis techniques and was used to understand the difference between the concepts of project planning and project scheduling, and also to determine the objectives of project scheduling.
The Time Impact Analysis method (TIA) was selected for analyzing construction schedule delays on completion construction works of a covered swimming pool building complex in Ankara since the method could be used both in forward and retrospective analysis applications by adding impacts into the as-planned schedules. The necessary data and documents were obtained from the related construction and consulting companies.
1.4 Disposition
The study is presented in five chapters, of which this introduction is the first. In the first chapter, the argument, objectives and methodology of the study are introduced. It includes also disposition of the chapters and their contents.
In the second chapter, a brief literature survey is given on construction project planning and project scheduling. Thereafter, information on construction schedule delays, causes and types of construction delays, as well methods of schedule delay analysis are presented.
In the third chapter, the case study project which is completion construction works of a covered swimming pool building complex in Ankara is presented in the material section. And, the procedure followed for analyzing schedule delays is introduced in the section of methodology.
In the fourth chapter, a discussion on the results obtained from the application of the delay analysis technique is presented.
In the fifth and last chapter, the conclusion of this study with findings and their interpretations is given.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
In this chapter are presented the literature survey with the following headings.
Arkan and Dikmen (2004) give the definition of planning as Trying to anticipate what will happen and devising ways of achieving the set of objectives and targets; and point out that in planning concept there are always objectives to be reached in future. The authors describe planning as a process during which efforts and decisions are made to achieve the goals at the desired time in the desired way. They further line up the main objectives of a construction project as follows:
1. To complete the construction within the specified time (duration) 2. To complete it within the budget, (with a profit) 3. To complete it in compliance with technical and administrative specifications. Project planning has been also defined as the process of selecting the one method and order of work to be used on a project from among all the various methods and sequences in which it could be done (Callahan, Quackenbush, and Rowings
1992). The authors also note that this process supplies detailed information used for time estimation and schedule; besides a baseline for project control.
Mubarak (2005) states that project planning works for several functions such as: cost estimating, scheduling, project control, safety management, etc. According to Arkan and Dikmen (2004) the main purpose of planning is to provide the primary duties of the manager, namely, direction and control. The second objective of planning is to organize all the relationships and information systems among the many parties involved in the construction project. The authors further describe the third function of planning as enabling project control and forecasting.
Smith (2002) emphasizes the importance of careful and continuous project planning in the success of a realization of a project; and also notes that the activities of designers, producers, suppliers, workers and contractors, and their resources must be coordinated and integrated with the objectives of contractor. Oberlender (2000) agrees with Smith that planning coordinates all works of the construction to reach a completed quality project. The author determines the basic benefit of project planning and scheduling as an effective tool of preventing some of the problems like delays in work, cost overrun or decline in productivity and principally puts in order the desired results of project planning and scheduling as indicated below:
1. Finish the project on time. 2. Continuous (uninterrupted) flow of work (no delays). 3. Reduced amount of rework (least amount of changes). 4. Minimize confusion and misunderstandings. 5. Increased knowledge of status of project by everyone. 6. Meaningful and timely reports to management. 7. You run the project instead of the project running you. 8. Knowledge of scheduled times of key parts of the project. 9. Knowledge of distribution of costs of the project.
10. Accountability of people, defined responsibility/ authority. 11. Clear understanding of who does what, when, and how much. 12. Integration of all work to ensure a quality project for the owner.
The terms of project planning and scheduling are often mistakenly thought of as synonymous. However, as Mubarak (2005) indicates scheduling concentrates on the timing and sequence of operations in the project planning effort. Therefore, while project planning covers the issues of what is going to be done?, where?, how? and when?, the term of project scheduling covers only the issue of when?. Trauner, Manginelli, Lowe, Nagata and Furniss (2009) agree with Mubarak and define project schedule as a written or graphical representation of the Contractors plan for completing a construction project that emphasizes the elements of time and sequence. According to the Trauner, et al. (2009), the project schedule should display all the construction tasks from the beginning of the project through completion, the time periods for each tasks, and the sequence of these tasks in a logical order. Oxley and Poskitt (1996) define project scheduling as the process of determining the actual time periods during which the activities are planned to take place: that is, start and finish dates for each activity. In order to determine the construction activities and their time periods, project planning should have been done before project scheduling. Oberlender (2000) claims that a successful project planning is more difficult to organize than scheduling. If the activities are identified in project planning, then scheduling the project will become relatively easy.
After a successful planning process, the schedule of the project is prepared. There are major objectives that are expected from good project scheduling. According to Mubarak (2005) there are eight important objectives of scheduling as noted below:
1. To calculate the project completion date. 2. To calculate the start or end of a specific activity. 3. To expose and adjust conflicts between trades or subcontractors. 4. To predict and calculate the cash flow. 5. To evaluate the effect of changes. 6. To improve work efficiency. 7. To resolve delay claims. 8. To serve as an effective project control tool.
A project schedule is viewed as a valuable project control tool for Project Managers to successfully conduct construction projects (Trauner, Manginelli, Lowe, Nagata and Furniss, 2009). Trauner et al. (2009) further explain the basic purposes of a project schedule as effectively depicting the construction plan to the project participants, permitting management to control and measure the progression of the work, and finally accommodating the participants with information for timely decisions.
Callahan et al. (1992) claim that the probabilities of on-time, on-budget, disputefree completion may be increased by means of a schedule and the purpose of the schedules is specified by the individual using the schedule. The authors further explain that the purpose to predict project completion for contractors is that they can arrange crew sizes, shifts or equipment to speed or slow progress. While, for architects or engineers the purpose is to determine how long design and
construction will take for completion of the project. The authors add that subcontractors use the information of specific activities start and finish times to predict when they are needed at the site. Also, the activity completion dates are used by owners in order to decide when to deliver owner-furnished equipment and to coordinate partial occupancy. Another purpose of scheduling for contractors is to reveal and resolve conflicts between firms or subcontractors. Both for contractors and owners schedules are used to plan cash flow.
Callahan et al. (1992) also indicate that schedules are used for measuring delay and time extensions. If the schedules are regularly updated including work sequences, unanticipated delays, actual activity completion dates and change orders, then the owner and contractor can measure the affect of additional works and unanticipated delays, thus avoiding disputes. The causes and different types of schedule delays are given in the following paragraphs.
There are a number of definitions for delay. In the construction management context, the simplest definition of a delay is made by Mubarak (2005) as an event or a condition that results in finishing the project later than stipulated in the contract. Callahan et al. (1992) define delay in construction claims as the time during which some part of the construction project has been extended or not executed owing to an unexpected event. In another study, Trauner et al. (2009) describe delay as to make something happen later than expected or to not act timely. It is usual for delays to occur on construction projects. Callahan et al. (1992) claim that schedules have an important role in construction delays; since the effects of delays on the project completion date can be displayed and future delays can be anticipated by rescheduling the project through the computer.
10
As Abd El-Razek, Bassioni and Mobarak (2008) studied several articles on examining the causes of construction delays in many ways; some studies determined the main causes of delay in different countries, while some of them investigated the delay analysis methods in different types of construction. The authors have listed 87 causes of construction delays which are given in Appendix A.
Mansfield, Ugwu, and Doran (1994) discussed the causes of delay and cost overruns by examining data relating to construction projects in Nigeria. Assaf, AlKhalil, and Al-Hazmi (1995) studied the main causes of delay in large building projects in Saudi Arabia and their relative importance. In the study undertaken by Assaf, et al. (1995), the largest number of causes of delay (56 causes) was listed and the respondents were asked to point out their degree of importance. The authors grouped the delay factors into nine major groups: financing, materials, contractual relationships, project changes, government relations, manpower, scheduling and control, equipment, and environmental factors. The financing group of delay factors was selected as the most significant delay factor by all parties and that environment group was selected as least significant. In another observation, Odeh and Battaineh (2002) carried out a study to determine the most significant causes of construction delays with traditional type of contracts with regard to contractors and consultants. According to the results of the study, owner interference, inadequate contractor experience, financing and payments, labor productivity, slow decision making, improper planning, and subcontractors are among the top ten most significant causes of delays.
Another study was by Kaliba, Muya, and Mumba (2009) which aimed to determine the causes and effects of cost escalation and schedule delays in road construction projects in Zambia. The authors compile the main causes of delays in road construction projects which are determined according to their survey, as in
11
the following: delayed payments, financial processes and difficulties on the part of contractors and clients, contract modification, economic problems, materials procurement, changes in drawings, staffing problems, equipment unavailability, poor supervision, construction mistakes, poor coordination on site, changes in specifications and labour disputes and strikes. In another research, Frimpong, Oluwoye, and Crawford (2003) carried out a study to determine and assess the relative importance of causes of delays and cost overruns in Ghana groundwater construction projects. The research showed that monthly payment difficulties from agencies, poor contractor management, material procurement, poor technical performances, and escalation of material prices were the main causes in the study.
In another research, Ahmed, Azhar, Castillo, and Kappagantula conducted a study on the major causes of delays in construction projects in the Florida Construction Industry through a survey (http://www.scribd.com/doc/28215106/ConstructionDelays-in-Florida-a-Study). According to the authors, there are two groups of causes for delays in construction projects: external and internal causes. Internal causes of delays cover the causes, which come from four parties involved in that project. These parties are the owner, designers, contractors, and consultants. Other delays, which do not come from these four parties, are based on external causes for example from the government, material suppliers, or weather. Some of the possible causes of delays are as follows:
Possessive decision-making mechanism, Highly bureaucratic organization, Insufficient data collection and survey before design, Sites topography is changed after design Lack of coordination at design phase Inadequate review Improper inspection approach Different attitude between the consultant and contractors Financial difficulties
12
Inexperienced personnel Insufficient number of staffs Deficiency in project coordination Spend some time to find sub-contractors company who is appropriate for each task Often changing Sub-contractors Company Inadequate, and old equipment Lack of high-technology equipment Harvest time
Arditi, Akan, and Gurdamar (1985) examined a large number of public projects in Turkey in order to determine and grade the level of importance of the causes of construction delays in such projects. According to the results of their research, the most important reasons of these delays and their average weights were as follows:
Shortage of some resources like qualified manpower, technical personnel, construction materials and equipment (31%), Financial difficulties of contractors and public agencies (21%), Organizational deficiencies of public agencies and contracting companies such as bureaucratic obstacles and slow decision-making mechanism in public organizations (19%), Delays in design work, large quantities of extra work, frequent change orders (The total average weight of these three reasons is 14%).
Average weight of the four reasons of construction delays mentioned above is 85%. The remaining 15% was related to other minor reasons of delays. Odaba (2009) investigated factors affecting construction durations and models for estimating construction durations. The author selected from the literature and listed the most significant ones under eleven headings as: cost, cash flow, productivity on site, material procurement, project related factors, technology and
13
methodology of construction, experience, coordination, weather, construction site, and the degree of completeness of design project.
In the study of Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006), significant factors causing construction delays in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were analyzed. This research has determined the top ten most significant causes of construction delays as shown in the table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1: Ten most significant causes of delays in the UAE construction industry (Source: Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006) Causes of delay Rank RII (Relative Importance Index) Preparation and approval of drawings Inadequate early planning of the project Slowness of the owners decision-making process Shortage of manpower Poor supervision and poor site management Productivity of manpower Skill of manpower Non-availability of materials on time Obtaining permit/ approval from the municipality/ different government authorities Financing by contractor during construction 10 2.261 4 5 6 7 8 9 2.348 2.337 2.297 2.281 2.280 2.275 1 2 3 2.495 2.429 2.398
In another observation, Baldwin, Manthei, Rothbart, and Harris (1971) conducted the study to determine the causes of construction delays in the United States. The authors examined the causes of delays under seventeen categories as: weather, labor supply, material shortage, equipment failure, finances, manufactured items,
14
construction mistakes, design changes, foundation conditions, permits, shop drawings, sample approvals, building codes, subcontractors, contracts,
jurisdictional disputes, and inspections. The study of Lo, Fung, and Tung (2006) covering the issue of construction delays in Hong Kong civil engineering projects, was conducted on mainly compiling the perceptions of civil construction practitioners on how important are the causes of delay. Lo, et al. (2006),
therefore, summarized previous studies some of which are also stated above, on causes of delay in construction, as in the Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Summary of previous studies on causes of delay (Source: Lo et al., 2006) Researchers Arditi et al. (1985) Country Major causes of delay Turkey 1. shortages of resources 2. financial difficulties faced by public agencies and contractors 3. organizational deficiencies 4. delays in design work 5. frequent change orders/ design 6. considerable additional work 1. inclement weather 2. shortages of labour supply 3. subcontracting system 1. shortages of materials 2. failure to pay for completed works 3. poor contract management 1. delays in payment by agencies to contractors 2. fluctuations in materials, labour and plant costs 1. improper financial and payment arrangements 2. poor contract management 3. shortages of materials 4. inaccurate cost estimates 5. fluctuations in cost
Baldwin (1971)
U.S.
Okpala and Aniekwu Nigeria (1988) Dlakwa and Culpin Nigeria (1990)
Mansfield (1994)
et
al. Nigeria
15
Table 2.2: Continued Researchers Semple et al. (1994) Country Major causes of delay Canada 1. 2. 3. 1. increases in the scope of works inclement weather restricted access slow preparation and approval of shop drawing delays in payments to contractor changes of design/design error shortages of labour supply poor workmanship shortages of materials changes of design liaison problems among the contracting parties unforeseen ground conditions poor site management and supervision slow decision making by project teams client-initiated variations cash flow problems/ financial difficulties difficulties in obtaining permits lowest bid wins system poor design change orders/ design inclement weather unforeseen site conditions late delivery
Saudi Arabia
Ogunlana et al.(1996)
2. 3. 4. 5. Thailand 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Al-Momani (2000)
Jordan
According to Hinze (1993), the causes of construction delays are numerous, including strikes, adverse weather, late decisions by the owner, unforeseen changes affecting construction duration and so on. He asserts that delays affect unfavourably all the contracting parties, for example; owners get their buildings later than planned, contractors are affected adversely due to increased construction costs. The causes of construction delays are classified by the author into three groups according to their origination as follows:
16
Delays caused by the contractor or the contractors agents Delays caused by the owner or the owners agents: In another study, Trauner et al. (2009) exemplify the causes of delays to a project caused by the owner such as; a change in the design, an error or omission in the contract documents, a differing site condition, failure to make approvals on time, failure to respond to requested information required to progress the work, or even stop work orders. Delays caused by force majeure or acts of God
In another field observation, Mubarak (2005) groups the causes of construction delays in six categories regardless of who is at fault; as listed below: 1. Differing Site Conditions 2. Design Errors or Omissions 3. Changes in Owners Requirements 4. Unusually Adverse Weather 5. Miscellaneous Factors 6. Force Majeure
General types of construction delays should be clearly examined before schedule delay analysis begins. Schedule construction delays are categorized in many ways. According to Trauner et al. (2009), there are four main groups of construction delays:
17
The diagram displayed in Figure 2.1 presents a general overview of how the construction delays can be categorized. Firstly, if the delay is critical or noncritical and concurrent or non-concurrent should be determined in the process of analyzing delay effects on the project. All construction delays are either excusable or non-excusable as shown in the figure. Then, excusable delays are classified into compensable or non-compensable delays. This figure presents only one interpretation, since excusability and compensability of delays can change according to the contract.
18
In the study of Yang, Yin, and Kao (2007) delay classification is given in a different manner (Figure 2.2), but similar to the concept of Trauner et al. In another study, Kartam (1999) classified project delays into three main groups in terms of their origin, timing and compensability as shown in Figure 2.3. These groups are as given in the following:
Figure 2.2: Delay Classification (Source: Yang, Yin and Kao, 2007)
19
Delays classified by their origin: Owner caused delays (OCD), contractor caused delays (CCD), third party caused delays (TPCD) Delays classified by their timing: These are concurrent delays (CD) and non-concurrent delays (NCD). Delays classified by their compensability: These are excusable delays (ED) which are also classified in itself as excusable compensable delays (ECD) and excusable non-compensable delays (ENCD), and nonexcusable delays (NED).
While several authors (Mubarak, 2005; Kelleher, 2005; Levy, 2006) categorize delays into three groups as Excusable and Non-excusable, Compensable and Noncompensable and Concurrent and Non-concurrent; certain authors (Trauner et al., 2009; Callahan et al., 1992) add one more category to these three groups which is Critical and Noncritical delays.
20
According to Trauner et al., (2009) and Callahan et al., (1992), the primary focus in any study of delays in a project is to see if the delay affects the progress of the entire project or the project completion date. The authors further state that delays which result in extended project completion are considered critical delays, and delays that do not affect the project completion date are known as noncritical delays. Trauner et al. (2009) further claim that the issue of critical delays emerges from the Critical Path Method (CPM) scheduling. All projects have a critical path and if these critical activities on the path are delayed than the completion date of the project will be extended. The criteria determining the project completion date are as follows (Trauner et al., 2009):
The project itself The contractors plan and schedule (particularly the critical path) The requirements of the contract for sequence and phasing The physical constraints of the project- how to build the job from a practical perspective.
Construction delays are basically either excusable or non-excusable. Callahan et al. (1992) and Trauner et al. (2009) claim that whether a delay is excusable or non-excusable depends on the clauses in the contract. The authors note that standard construction contracts specify types of delay that will allow the contractor to an extension of time. For instance, in some contracts, unexpected or unusual weather conditions are not considered as excusable and so these contracts do not allow for any time extensions. According to Trauner et al. (2009) an excusable delay, in general, is owing to an unforeseeable event beyond the contractors or the subcontractors control. The authors further explain that delays resulting from the following issues are known as excusable:
21
General labor strikes, Fires, Floods, Acts of God, Owner-directed changes, Errors and omissions in the plans and specifications, Differing site conditions or concealed conditions, Unusually severe weather, Intervention by outside agencies, Lack of action by government bodies, such as building inspection.
In another study, Levy (2006) adds two more excusable delays to the above list as: Illness or death of one or more of the contractors, Transportation delays over which the contractor has no control.
Moreover, Kelleher (2005) supplies the above list with two more delays as: Epidemics, Quarantine restrictions. Mubarak (2005) defines non-excusable delays as delays that are either caused by the contractor or not caused by the contractor but should have been foreseen by the contractor. He also points out that a non-excusable delay does not entitle the contractor to either a time extension or monetary compensation. Trauner et al. (2009) enumerate some examples of non-excusable delays as follows: Late performance of subcontractors, Untimely performance by suppliers, Faulty workmanship by the contractor or subcontractors, A project-specific labor strike caused by the contractors unwillingness to meet with labor representatives or by unfair labor practices.
22
In another observation, Mubarak (2005) adds other examples to the above list as: Contractor cash-flow problems, Accidents on the site caused by the contractors negligence or lack of preparations, Late delivery of the contractors furnished materials and equipment.
As stated in the excusable delays, again, the contract is the determinant whether or not a delay is considered non-excusable. Therefore, Trauner et al. (2009) warn contractors that before signing the contract it should be clearly understood which delays are defined as excusable and which as non-excusable.
In some studies, Callahan et al. (1992), Kartam (1999) and Mubarak (2005) claim that an excusable delay can be classified as excusable compensable and excusable non-compensable. As Mubarak (2005) states compensable delays are caused by the owner or the designer (engineer or architect). The contractor is typically entitled to a time extension or recovery of the costs related with the delay, or both. Factors which are specified in the contract resulting in delays such as differing site conditions, changes in the work, access to the site are some examples of compensable delays. According to Trauner et al. (2009) only excusable delays may be compensable.
The authors further explain non-compensable delays as those which despite being excusable do not entitle the contractor to any compensation. Many authors such as Barrie and Paulson (1992) and Mubarak (2005), point out that excusable noncompensable delays are normally beyond the control of either owner or contractor such as unusual weather conditions, natural disasters, wars, national crises, floods, fires or labor strikes. They add that usually the contractor is entitled to a time extension, but not additional compensation.
23
Trauner et al. (2009) emphasize that if a delay is compensable or noncompensable basically depends on the issues of the contract. The contract determines the types of delays in detail and for which delay the contractor is entitled to time extension or monetary compensation.
Mubarak (2005) states that a concurrent delay includes a combination of two or more independent causes of delay occurring within the same time frame. According to the author, a concurrent delay often includes an excusable delay and a non-excusable delay. Another definition made by Callahan et al. (1992) is that more than one delay contributed to the project delay, not that the delays necessarily occurred at the same time. Although this type of delays seems like a simple issue, still there is no clear definition of concurrent delays. According to Trauner et al. (2009) concurrent delays are simply defined as separate delays to the critical path that occur at the same time. Levy (2006) names this type of delays as overlapping delays. Nguyen (2007) also points out that simultaneous delays, commingled delays, and intertwined delays are other names used for concurrent delays.
Levy (2006) further indicates that concurrent delays may be generated by the contractor or by the owner, but if it happens that both parties are responsible, and these delays overlap then neither party can be able to retrieve damages.
Figure 2.4 shows the possible critical delay interactions among three parties: owner (O), contractor (C) and third party (N). The Venn diagram representation and the use of set theory to show concurrent delays are proposed as new concepts by the study of Mbabazi, Hegazy, and Saccomanno (2005) and they are very useful in apportioning delays. The diagram presents all types of critical delay
24
combinations. Based on these critical delay types, time and cost compensation can be determined accurately for each of the seven segments in the Venn diagram. The diagram covers three intersecting sets of (O), (C) and (N). Using uppercase letters is to emphasize that all delays are critical delays. For example, OCN represents a one-party delay meaning only owner caused delay but not contractor or third-party caused delay. Similarly, OCN is an example of a two-party concurrent delay that is the owner and the contractor caused delays but not third party caused delay. Using set theorems, the right side is just a mathematical representation by seven variables a, b, c, d, e, f, and g of the values on the left side shown by each segment.
Figure 2.4: Concurrent Delay Representation (Source: Mbabazi, Hegazy, and Saccomanno, 2005)
Table 2.3 concludes the different perspectives on concurrent delays from previous studies. Concurrent delay analysis brings about many issues, since both owners and contractors view concurrent delays as a strong defense tool against each other. For example, owners use them to preserve their interest in order to get liquidated damages, however contractors use them to neutralize their inexcusable delays and avoid damage entitlement. Courts, practitioners, researchers are generally inconsistent in the subjects of definition and apportionment of concurrent delays.
25
All kinds of practitioners, especially contractors, contract administrators, and claims consultants have divergent opinions on concurrent delays. (Nguyen, 2007) As shown in the Table 2.3, general views regard concurrent delays as being similar to excusable delays. That means contractors are entitled only time extension. Table 2.3: Divergent and inconsistent perspectives on concurrent delays (Source: Nguyen, 2007) No Literature Excusable& Inexcusable Excusable Excusable Concurrent Delays Excusable& Compensable Compensable & Inexcusable Compensable Excusable Excusable Not Available
1 2
Ponce de Leon (1987) Reams (1989); Battikha and Alkass (1994) Arditi and Robinson (1995); Al-Saggaf (1998) Rubin (1983); Galloway and Nielsen (1990); Wiezel (1992); Alkass et al. (1995); Schumacher (1995); Galloway et al. (1997); Kartam (1999); Stumpf (2000); Reynolds and Revay (2001); Niesse (2004) Construction (1993); Baram (2000); Construction (2002) Kraiem and Diekmann (1987); James (1991); Kutil and Ness (1997); Finke (1999); Ness (2000); Bubshait and Cunningham (2004) Hughes and Ulwelling (1992); Wickwire et al. (2003)
Inexcusable
Excusable
Not Available
Excusable
Excusable
Excusable
Inexcusable
Excusable
Inexcusable
Excusable
Excusable
Excusable or Apportioning
Excusable
Excusable
Apportioning
26
In the study of Ndekugri, Braimah, Gameson (2008), delay analysis (DA) is defined as the task of investigating the events that led to project delay for the purpose of determining the financial responsibilities of the contracting parties arising from the delay. The authors further point out that the techniques which have been developed for analyzing construction delays until today are referred to as delay analysis methodologies (DAM).
Schedule analysis is used in order to identify delays and to measure the net impacts of delays on a project. Basic tools which are used in the schedule analysis are known as bar chart schedules and critical path method schedules.
a) Bar Charts
Callahan et al. (1992) defines bar charts as a collection of activities listed in a vertical column with time represented on a horizontal scale. Bar charts show duration, start and finish times of project activities in chronological order. Henry L. Gantt developed bar charts during World War I. This tool is widely preferred since it is simple, easy to prepare and has an easily understandable format.
However, bar charts have many limitations. Wickwire, Driscoll, Hurlbut, and Hillman (2003) give a detailed list of disadvantages of this tool:
27
Size limits a bar chart in what it can graphically present Bar charts do not show the interrelationships or interdependencies of one bar to another Bar charts do not show the available float or contingency time, nor can they show the delay impact of one bar on another Bar charts are not capable of accurately distributing or controlling manpower and project costs. Adding more detail to the bar chart makes it harder to read, understand, and maintain.
Consequently, bar charts cannot show the logical relationships among activities. When there are continuous relationships between many activities, a bar chart becomes difficult to prepare schedule correctly (Callahan et al. 1992).
The E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Company in conjunction with UNIVAC Applications Research Center of Remington Rand developed the Critical Path Methods between the years of 1956 and 1958. In 1961, CPM technique was first used in construction projects. However, this tool was not used widely in the late 1960s (Callahan et al., 1992).
In project management, the Critical Path Method (CPM) is a planning, scheduling and controlling tool and using this tool properly facilitates the completion of projects timely. Wickwire et al. (2003) describe CPM as a graphic representation of the planned sequence of activities that shows the interrelationships and interdependencies of the elements composing a project. At first, CPM was introduced as a planning tool; however, later additional function of CPM appeared as proving delay claims. This function is the result of the ability of CPM as showing the picture of the project and changes.
28
As Nguyen, and Ibbs (2008) stated, there is a variety of schedule delay analysis techniques in construction industry. Many articles have researched these common techniques and some of them also have proposed new methodologies to the construction industry. The different methods of schedule delay analysis will be mentioned as some other techniques in the following part. However, in this part common current methods of schedule delay analysis will have been explained in detail. In the study of Nguyen (2007), the term reliability defines the result of a forensic schedule analysis that correctly presents and shows the facts. According to the research, main techniques presented herein are as follows:
Figure 2.5: Mapping of Forensic Schedule Analysis Techniques (Source: Nguyen, 2007)
29
In the research of Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon (2008), a chronological analysis was built up to see the ratios of the usage of common schedule delay methods in a diagram as showed in Figure 2.6. This diagram includes the years of 1989 up to 2005. From the diagram it is understood that time impact analysis method is most preferred since it has become easier due to developed computer technologies; on the other hand impact as-planned analysis method has not become popular currently because this method is not accepted in courts as reliable any more.
Figure 2.6: Chronological Analysis of Schedule Analysis Techniques (Source: Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon, 2008) Table 2.4 concludes the common delay analysis methodologies (DAMs) classified from the literature and their different names. Following methodologies are the most commented upon in literature; they are also given in detail in the following pages. As-planned versus as-built, Impacted as-planned, Collapsed as-built, Window analysis, and Time impact analysis.
30
Table 2.4: Names of existing delay analysis methodologies (DAMs) (Source: Ndekugri, Braimah, Gameson, 2008)
Common Name
Literature Review
Non-Cpm Based Techniques S-curve Rubin et al. 1999 Global impact Leary and Bramble 1988; technique Alkass et al. 1995, 1996; Pinnell 1998 Net impact Leary and Bramble 1988; Alkass et al. 1995, 1996;
Bar chart analysis (Zack 2001; Lucas 2002) As-built bar chart (Bordoli and Baldwin 1998) Adjusted as-built CPM (Leary and Bramble 1988; Alkass et al. 1996) Total time (Zack 2001; Wickwire and Groff 2004) Impactedas-builtCPM(Pinnell 1998) What if (Schumacher 1995) Baseline adding impacts (Bordoli and Baldwin 1998) As-planned-plus delay analysis (Zack 2001; Chehayeb et al. 1995) As-plannedCPM (Pinnell1998) But for (Schumacher 1995; Zack 2001; Lucas 2002) As-built but-for (Pickavance 2005) As-built subtracting impacts (Bordoli and Baldwin 1998) As-built-minus analysis (Chehayeb et al. 1995) As-built less delay analysis (Zack 2001) Contemporaneous period analysis (Schumacher 1995; Lucas 2002; Zack 2001) Snapshot (Alkass et al. 1995, 1996) Periodic update analysis (Chehayeb et al. 1995) Watershed (Pickavance 2005) End of every delay analysis (Chehayeb et al. 1995) Chronological and cumulative approach (Wickwire and Groff 2004)
Cpm Based Techniques As-planned Stumpf 2000; Lucas versus as-built 2002; Lovejoy 2004; Pickavance 2005
Collapsed as-built
Alkass et al.1996; Pinnell 1998 Trauner 1990; Pinnell 1998; Lucas 2002; Lovejoy 2004; Pickavance 2005 Pinnell 1998; Stumpf 2000; Wickwire and Groff 2004; Lovejoy 2004
Window analysis
Galloway and Nielsen 1990; Bordoli and Baldwin 1998; Finke 1999; Lovejoy 2004; Pickavance 2005
31
Basically, the main concept is that the as-planned versus as-built method compares two schedules, which is why it is also called the total time method or net impact method. In this method the assumption is that one party (contractor) causes no delays and other party (owner) causes all delays. In this manner, the method displays the net impact of all claimed delays on projects finish date (Nguyen, 2007). Figure 2.7 illustrates the as-planned versus as-built method where the as-planned schedule takes 10 days and as-built schedule takes 15 days. The difference between the two is 5 days which is total amount of delays recoverable. In other words, the difference between the two is regarded as delay to which a contractor is entitled to an extension of time as a means of an excusable delay activity.
Figure 2.7: Diagram of As-Planned versus As-Built Method (Source: Nguyen, 2007)
According to Ndekugri et al. (2008), the main advantage of this method is that it is inexpensive, simple and easy to use or understand, on the other hand its disadvantages are failure to consider changes in the critical path and incapability of managing complex construction delays.
32
The other names of this method are what-if or adjusted-baseline method. According to Trauner et al. (2009), in this method the analyst specifies the asplanned schedule, and inserts into this schedule the changes which caused project delays. These changes are the only determined delays recorded during construction process which may have affected the project duration. The period between the completion date presented on the as-planned programme and the one on the impacted as-planned programme is regarded as delay to which a contractor is entitled to an extension of time as a means of an excusable delay activity.
Trauner et al. (2009) point out the major weaknesses of this method as follows: firstly the impacted schedule does not show the project activities as they occurred, secondly the decision of placing which changes or impacts into the schedule is greatly subjective, and finally, and also most significantly, it does not reflect the dynamic nature of construction project and the critical path. The authors also add that some analysts like this approach because of being simple and clean, however, this method is greatly inaccurate. According to the authors by using the first schedule, this method freezes the critical path at the beginning of the project, thus the real changes in the critical path will not be identified. Nonetheless, Nguyen (2007) claims that the what-if method is more reliable than the total time method since this method distinguishes between the types of delays.
Another method of analysis is the collapsed as-built method, also called the subtractive as-built or but-for method. In this method, the analyst studies all contemporaneous project documentation and prepares a detailed as-built schedule instead of an as-planned schedule as mentioned in the what-if method. The analyst
33
subtracts or removes activities which affected the project from the as-built schedule (Trauner et al. 2009). The authors point out that if subtracting activities from the as-built schedule has an impact on the new schedules end date, then the difference in time between the as-built and the collapsed as-built end dates is thought to be the delay caused by the subtracted or removed activities. In the study of Trauner et al. (2009) two different variations of this method are explained such as unit subtractive as-built and gross subtractive as-built methods.
Finally, according to the authors, this method has many serious problems and their three primary weaknesses are explained as follows: 1. It requires the analyst to construct a CPM network diagram based on asbuilt information. 2. It is extremely subjective and highly amenable to manipulation. 3. With very little effort, the analyst can create an as-built schedule that supports a predisposed conclusion.
Window analysis method is also called the contemporaneous period analysis and snapshot method. In contrast to previous methods which analyze construction delays by taking into consideration the whole project, window analysis method analyzes delays within certain time periods individually (Nguyen, 2007). This technique is based on CPM scheduling. In this method, the basic concept is that the total project duration of CPM schedule is divided into digestible time periods or windows (e.g., monthly) and the delays that occurred in each windows of time are analyzed successively by focusing on the critical paths (Hegazy and Zhang, 2005). The authors indicate that the selection of boundaries of window sizes is specified with major project milestones, significant modifications in the critical
34
path, occurrence of major delay events and dates for the issue of schedule revisions. These factors identify the number of windows and boundaries of these windows for the entire project.
The study of Kaoa and Yangb (2009) compares windows-based delay analysis methods to determine their advantages and limitations. The differences in terms of the perspectives of use prerequisite, functional capability, analytical process and accuracy of analysis results are reviewed in terms of a simulated case.
Windows-based delay analysis methods are grouped in the study of Kaoa and Yangb as follows: 1. Windows analysis 2. Modified windows analysis 3. Delay analysis method using delay section 4. Daily windows delay analysis
Figure 2.8 shows an example summary of the results in the window schedule analysis.
35
Figure 2.8: Summary of Windows Schedule Analysis Results (Source: http://www.long-intl.com/brochures/WindowsSchedAnal.pdf, accessed 10/08/2010) In the research of Hegazy and Zhang (2005, p506), the major drawbacks of traditional windows analysis are summarized below: First drawback: While the as-built is the key to accurate delay analysis, it is widely recognized that it is manually done after the fact (after the project ends) and not as the events evolve, due to the difficulty in site-data recording. Accordingly, the as-
36
built schedule may be subjected to errors and omissions that hinder accurate delay analysis. Second drawback: With the window span being in the form of weeks or months, the focus is on the critical path(s) that exists at the end of the window time. Thus, the technique does not consider the fluctuation that occurs in the critical path(s) as events evolve on site. Third drawback: As a consequence of the above point, the technique loses sensitivity to the time at which the owner/contractor cause project delays within the window. Also, it loses sensitivity to the events of speeding or slowdowns within the window. Fourth drawback: The delay representation of existing software systems makes the application and automation of the windows technique a difficult task.
On the other hand, the authors evaluate the above drawbacks as the desired objectives of their proposed method which is called the daily windows delay analysis. According to the authors, the proposed method views the fluctuation day-by-day in critical path and so reaches correct and repeatable results to allocate project delays between the parties involved. The authors claim that this proposed method is a simple and practical alternative with its automated and computerized nature compared to a traditional window analysis which demands extensive effort. In another study of Hegazy and Menesi (2008), the authors proposed a different variation of delay analysis called delay analysis under multiple baseline updates. This model which is based on a daily window size considers multiple baseline updates in order to accurately apportion delays and accelerations among project parties.
Opposite to Hegazy and Zhang (2005), Ndekugri, Braimah, and Gameson (2008) argue that the main strength of window analysis method is its capacity to take care of the dynamic nature of critical path scheduling. According to the authors, this method is used successively for each of the windows to specify the impacts of all other delays on project completion. Nguyen (2007) also claims that many
37
researchers, experts, courts as well as boards generally approve window analysis method as the most suitable choice.
Nguyen (2007) indicates that the time impact analysis method (TIA) is one of the most reliable techniques presently. Alkass, Mazerolle, and Harris (1996) state that this method is a variation of the window analysis technique, also in this method, the analyst focuses on a specific delay or delay activity, whereas in the window analysis the analyst focuses on time periods (also known as window or snapshot).
This method analyzes the impacts of delays chronologically, starting with the first delay, by incorporating each delay (sometimes using a fragnet- or subnet-works) into an updated CPM schedule. The analyst determines the amount of project delay resulted from each of the delaying activity successively by calculating the difference between the project completion date of the schedule after the addition of each delay and that prior to the addition (Ndekugri, Braimah, and Gameson, 2008).
Alkass et al. (1996) note that this method is incapable of analyzing potential concurrent delays. The effect of concurrent delays is not immediately dealt with in this method since delaying events are analyzed separately. According to Ndekugri, Braimah, and Gameson (2008), another drawback of the method is that it is time consuming and costly to operate, especially in situations with many delaying activities.
Despite some of the above mentioned drawbacks, the Society of Construction Law (2002) recommends this method. Time Impact Analysis is the most appropriate method for specifying the amount of time extension that the contractor should have been given at the time that an excusable risk appeared.
38
However, in order to apply this method successfully, the daily records and diaries should be noted very meticulously and accurately. Otherwise, the analysis will not give correct results.
The study of Nguyen, et al. (2008) presented a new schedule delay analysis technique named as FLORA which could control the dynamics of float, logic, and resource allocation in the analyses. The authors further indicate that this method examines both the direct impact of delay and also its secondary effect. On the other hand, Alkass et al. (1996) conducted a study to discuss different delay analysis techniques which are currently being used in the construction industry. The authors also presented a new delay analysis method called the Isolated Delay Type (IDT). According to the authors, this new technique can be used as a standalone module for delay analysis or can be integrated within a computer system for delay analysis and construction claims preparation called Computerized Delay Claims Analysis (CDCA). In another field observation, Kim, Y., Kim, K., and Shin, (2005) made a study of delay analysis methods and introduced a new method called the delay analysis method using delay section (DAMUDS) in order to eliminate inadequate accounting of concurrent delay and time-shortened activities.
In the research of Oliveros, and Fayek (2005), the fuzzy logic model which combines daily site reporting of activity progress and delays with a schedule updating and forecasting system for project monitoring and control is introduced. Another research of Lee, Ryu, Yu, and Kim (2005) proposed a method for analyzing construction schedule delay in terms of lost productivity. They emphasize the necessity of a logical method for analyzing delays occurred by lost productivity in order to measure the delay time correctly. In the study of Shi, Cheung, and Arditi (2001), a different method which is not established on critical
39
path analyses is proposed for computing activity delays. The authors define this technique as Construction Delay Computation Method and add that this method may be combined with any delay analysis system in order to advance the process of delay analysis.
Kartam (1999) has presented a generic methodology for analyzing and resolving delay claims which has been developed and successfully used by the author. The developed methodology has brought into question of while several techniques for analyzing delay claims there are, how much adequate these techniques.
In conclusion, there are many schedule analysis techniques: some of them are really simple to understand and apply, while some are perhaps more difficult and more complicated to analyze delay activities. Some of them are old, while some of them are quite recent. Even so, each of the technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. In analyzing the delay activities of the schedule, the analysis method should be selected according to the appropriateness of the technique. However, determinants in selection of the technique depend on the availability of possible as-built information such as: project daily reports and diaries, meeting minutes, pay requests/estimates, inspection reports by the designer or owner, official correspondences, memos in the files, construction photographs taken at the site, and etc. The skill level of the analyst, relevant contract clauses, the nature of the schedule delays and the available time are the other determinants for choosing a delay analysis method.
According to Trauner et al. (2009), some important principles should be adopted in order to analyze schedule delays. A simple example will be examined to understand the basic principles and to measure the completion duration of the project. To start the analysis, the original as-planned schedule of the construction
40
project should be available (Table 2.5). Then, an as-built schedule to determine the changes on the project will be created (Table 2.6).
Table 2.5: As-Planned Schedule (Source: Trauner et al. 2009) No Name of the Activity Activity A Activity B Activity C Activity D Duration (each column is 10 days ) 10 days 10 days 10 days 5 days
0--10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60
1 2 3 4
Table 2.6: As-Built Schedule (Source: Trauner et al. 2009) No Name of the Activity Activity A Activity B Activity C Activity D Duration (each column is 10 days ) 20 days 10 days 10 days 5 days
0--10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60
1 2 3 4
While analyzing delays, chronological order should be followed from the beginning of the project. Each delay should be identified and the schedule should be updated accordingly. In this example, firstly Activity A will be analyzed and the delay will be identified. As-planned schedule will be compared with As-built for the Activity A in Table 2.7. It is seen that Activity A started on time but was delayed for 10 days. So, it is concluded that the duration of Activity A is extended from 10 days to 20 days and new duration became 20 days.
41
Table 2.7: 10 Day Extended Duration of Activity A (Source: Trauner et al. 2009) No Name of the Activity Activity A Activity A Activity B Activity B Activity C Activity C Activity D Activity D Duration (each column is 10 days ) 10 days 20 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 5 days 5 days
0--10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
Next, it is required to update our schedule in order to see the effect of Activity A to the remaining construction activities. The planned start of Activity B is moved later because it depends on the finish of Activity A. Now, the as-planned schedule for the actual performance of Activity A is updated. Activity B should be analyzed to see the effects on completion of the project. It is seen in Table 2.8 that Activity B started 5 days later than it should have because of a late start. Table 2.8: 5 Day Late Start of Activity B (Source: Trauner et al. 2009) No Name of the Activity Activity A Activity A Activity B Activity B Activity C Activity C Activity D Activity D Duration (each column is 10 days ) 10 days 20 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 5 days 5 days
0--10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
42
For each activity, this process should be repeated and the schedule should be updated. Again, the planned start of Activity C is moved later since it depends on the finish of Activity B. Now, Activity C of the as-built schedule will be analyzed based on the two previous activities. As seen in Table 2.9, Activity C is delayed for 10 days due to some interruptions. It is understood that in two periods, the work was not performed on Activity C. So, the activity finished 10 days later.
Table 2.9: 10 Day Delay Due to Interruptions to Activity C (Source: Trauner et al. 2009) No Name of the Activity Activity A Activity A Activity B Activity B Activity C Activity C Activity D Activity D Duration (each column is 10 days ) 10 days 20 days 10 days 10 days
10 Day Delay
0--10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
Finally, the remaining activities and their impacts on the duration of the project will be examined. In Table 2.10, it is commented that the last activity caused no delay to the project. Therefore, there is no difference in the as-planned and asbuilt schedules of the activity D.
43
Table 2.10: No Delay to Activity D (Source: Trauner et al. 2009) No Name of the Activity Activity A Activity A Activity B Activity B Activity C Activity C Activity D Activity D Duration (each column is 10 days ) 10 days 20 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 5 days 5 days
Activity D has no delay
0--10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
Consequently, in the comparison of As-Planned Schedule and As-Built Schedule as in Table 2.11, total duration is extended from day 35 to day 60. There has been occurred 25 day delay. All delays are summarized in Table 2.12. This kind of approach that is comparison of as-planned schedule to as-built schedule should be the basis in most of the analysis methods. The as-built information is very useful for the analyst in determining delays and their impacts. Table 2.11: As-Planned vs As-Built Schedule (Source: Trauner et al. 2009) No Name of the Activity Activity A Activity A Activity B Activity B Activity C Activity C Activity D Activity D Duration (each column is 10 days ) 10 days 20 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days
25 day delay
0--10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
5 days 5 days
44
Table 2.12: Summary of Delays (Source: Trauner et al. 2009) No Name of the Activity Activity A Activity A Activity B Activity B Activity C Activity C Activity D Activity D Duration (each column is 10 days ) 10 days 20 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 5 days 5 days
Activity D has no delay
0--10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
10 Day Delay
Trauner et al. (2009) points out that the term float appeared when the Critical Path Method was introduced. The authors describe float as the amount of time an activity can be delayed before it begins to delay the project. If the available float of an activity is used up, then the activity will be critical that means any other delay on the activity may extend the project duration. Callahan et al. (1992) note that float is measured by detracting the early finish time from the late finish time or detracting the early start time from the late start time. The early start and finish times mean the earliest time that an activity can start or finish depending on the activity durations in the project schedule and logical relationships between the activities. According to the authors, the float is a measure of schedule flexibility and an indicator of the ability of a given activity to have its performance time extended without affecting the project duration.
Float and criticality of an activity have an important relationship in the Critical Path Method. When float of the activity equals to zero, the activity is on the
45
critical path; and activities which are on the critical path are called critical activities. Any kind of project has at least one critical path in its schedule. The concept that while some activities are critical (their total float is zero) some other activities have float is very useful in appropriately analyzing the impacts of delaying events as a management tool in project schedules.
The analysis method should be selected according to the appropriateness of the technique. Determinants in selection of the delay analysis technique depend on the available data on the as-built project such as: daily reports and diaries, minutes of the meetings, requests for payments, inspection reports by the designer or owner, official correspondence between the parties, office memos on record, photographs taken at the site, the level of skill of the analyst, relevant contract clauses, the nature of the schedule delays, etc, as stated in the previous paragraph.
The analysis methods can be classified in many different categories, but classification of methods according to working process is more useful in selection of the methodology. Impacted As-planned (IAP) and Time Impact Analysis (TIA) methods which are based on adding impacts into the as-planned schedules are used both in forward looking and retrospective analysis applications. On the other hand, Collapsed as-built method based on subtracting impacts from the as-built schedules can be used only in retrospective analysis applications. Again, in the windows analysis method as-built schedule is needed, and the as-built schedule may be applied to errors and omissions that obstruct accurate delay analysis. Also, the method of As-planned versus as-built which is based on comparison of an asplanned and as-built schedule analytically is used only in retrospective analysis applications. Therefore, TIA and IAP methods remain since forward looking analysis application will be conducted in this study.
46
In this stage, the decision of selecting TIA or IAP method will be determined. TIA method is more reliable and more acceptable than IAP method. As it is understood from the research of Arditi and Pattanakitchamroon (2008), TIA method is most preferred presently because it has become easier due to developed computer technologies; however IAP analysis method has not become popular currently because this method is not accepted in courts as reliable any more. The Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol recommend TIA method at the same time. Therefore, TIA seems to be one of the best techniques for applying in this study.
47
The material and the research methodology of the study are presented in this chapter. The survey material includes the case study of completion construction works of a covered swimming pool building in Ankara. This part gives general information about the project. The methodology part presents the evaluation processes of the material.
3.1 Material
This study was conducted for analyzing construction schedule delays in order to recommend steps to eliminate or minimize their negative effects on construction completion duration and to apportion responsibility of delays amongst all project participants. A delay analysis was carried out on an under-construction project of a covered swimming pool building in Ankara, which had suffered many delays during its construction. Information on the case study project is presented in more detail in the following paragraphs.
This work consisted of the completion of unfinished construction works that had been abandoned by the previous contractor. The reason for choosing this project was that all the related data and materials like as-planned schedule of the project, project reports and diaries, official correspondences, project change orders, time extension requests, the construction contract and all other related bid documents
48
could be easily obtained from the related construction and consulting companies. Also, this project suffered many delays caused by the owner and the contractor, as well as by the project architects and the project consultant. Consequently, the asplanned schedule of the project was revised many times. Details on the identity of the project participants and the project are not given in this thesis for ethical reasons. In the context of this project, a FIDIC based contract was signed between the contractor and the owner. The owner had assigned a consulting company to oversee the project and deal with the contractor. The scope of work consisted of the completion of the unfinished covered swimming pool building as per the activities determined in the as-planned schedule, in compliance with the technical specifications of the contract. This as-planned schedule was attached to the FIDIC based contract. The working diagram of the case study project is presented in Figure 3.1.
The completion of construction works of the case study project consisted of two main stages: construction of the buildings structure and the finishing works. The
49
original as-planned schedule was prepared according to this division of work items. According to this schedule, the construction works were to be carried out in 4 months from 9 October 2009 to 16 February 2010; and the finishing works were to be carried out in 8 months from 16 February 2010 to 16 October 2010. However, some disputes, delays and failures occurred which prevented adherence to the as-planned schedule.
3.2. Methodology
The Time Impact Analysis method (TIA) was selected to analyze the construction delays in the work-schedule of the case-study construction project in order to determine the delays and apportion the responsibility of such delays amongst all parties. The aim was to identify construction delays, to quantify their net impacts on the project completion date and to allocate responsibility to all parties. Accurate allocation of liability is very important in schedule delay analyses in order to prevent delay claims amongst project parties. From the literature survey it was seen that the TIA would be the most appropriate technique to be used in this study. Therefore, for the successful application of this method, the daily records and diaries had been noted meticulously during the construction process.
This study was conducted in three stages; which are explained in detail in the following sections.
Collection of Information and Data; Determination of Causes, Types and Liability of Delays; and Conducting the Schedule Delay Analysis with TIA.
50
First of all, the construction site and the related companies were visited. Next, information on the specific problems and the delayed events of the covered swimming pool building were gathered through informal interviews carried out with the site supervisor; the project manager; the controller of the payments and bills; as well as the architects of the construction and consulting companies.
Secondly, the related data such as official correspondence between the contractor and the consultant, time extension requests of the contractor, project change orders of the owner during the construction period, old photographs of the construction works and as-planned schedule of the case study project were collected from the related department of the construction and consulting companies and analyzed carefully in order to have comprehensive knowledge about the construction process of the project. These data were compiled in tabulated form.
Finally, in order to understand time extension conditions and to identify types of construction schedule delays, the related clauses in the contract were studied to see if there were any special clauses in addition to the FIDIC clauses.
The application of the selected method started with the research and identification of delays. The accuracy of the schedule delay analysis depends on determining project delays and causes of such delays clearly. The causes of delays were determined by analyzing the official correspondence between consultant and contractor, time extension requests of the contractor, payment bills and project change orders by the owner during the construction period. These causes were
51
studied to understand which party was responsible for their occurrences. The causes of delays and the liable parties for such delays were compiled in a table form. Finally, the delay types according to their compensability were determined and presented alongside.
In this case study project, there were a total of 13 instances of delayed events including both critical and non-critical delays. 5 of them occurred in critical activities while 8 of these delays occurred in noncritical activities. In the context of this case study selection of delays was done according to the critical path method of the project as presented in Figure 3.2 and, therefore, in the delay analysis delays in non-critical activities were not included.
The delays in critical activities which were included in the Time Impact Analysis method are as follows: 1. Late start of handing over of construction site 2. Getting work permits late from municipality 3. Problems in concreting the ground floor 4. Unforeseeable weather conditions in concreting activities 5. Problems in masonry works
The delays in non-critical activities which were not included in the Time Impact Analysis method are as follows: 6. Delays in choice of material and, consequently, the subcontractor for the fenestration, 7. Delays in choice of material and, consequently, the subcontractor for paving tiles of the pool area, 8. Delays in the approval for gas connection by the gas company, 9. Uneven settling of floor area in one of the rooms, which had to be re-concreted, 10. Access route to the site had to be changed, 11. Extra work load in steel roof, (Incomplete works like welding, painting,
52
assembly and also repair work such as cleaning rusted steel surfaces. Also testing for integrity of the welded-joints of steel sections in the roof had to be repeated, resulting in delay in steel works.) 12. Delays in the approval of aluminum cladding wall subcontractor because of slow decision-making mechanism of the consulting company, 13. Change in system details of generator room according to field orders by the owner.
The reason these delays were not included in the analysis was because they did not extend the total construction period. For instance, the choice of material and the related subcontractor for the fenestration and for paving tiles of the pool area which delayed their installation did not cause delays in any other activities. In the same way problems in the steel roof, delays in approval of aluminum cladding wall subcontractor or change in system details of generator room caused some delays in the completion of these activities however the project duration did not change.
53
As stated before, the Time Impact Analysis (TIA) method was selected for the application of schedule delay analysis on the case study. The as-planned schedule, which had been added to the contract documents, was obtained in order to start the delay analysis. After identification of construction delays and allocation of
54
liabilities to parties, the delay analysis method was applied. In this study PRIMAVERA software was used since the as-planned schedule of the project was originally prepared in this computer programme. Although the costs, resources and durations of the activities were calculated in the as-planned schedule of the project, in the context of this research only durations were analyzed.
The as-planned schedule of the case study project is given in Appendix B. Original completion duration of the project was determined in the as-planned schedule as 370 days. In this step of the methodology, the impacts of the delays on the critical activities were seen in terms of project completion duration. Accordingly, the delayed events were entered into the as-planned schedule chronologically to ascertain the changes and delays in the progress of the construction. The delayed events in the critical activities were selected to be analyzed in TIA method since these delays extended the project duration. The selected delayed activities were also marked on the Critical Path Method of the project in Figure 3.2.
The first delayed activity which was late handing over of construction site was entered into the as-planned schedule and a 1st Revised Schedule was prepared and the new completion duration of the project was determined as 386 days. This 1st Revised Schedule was taken as the baseline for the next delayed activity of getting work permits late from municipality and this delayed activity was entered to make the 2nd Revised Schedule. Thus 2nd Revised Schedule was formed and new project completion duration was obtained as 392. These revisions and calculations were repeated for the remaining 3 delayed events, consequently new revised schedules and new project completion durations were obtained. After adding the last delayed event, the final revised schedule was generated in the end.
55
CHAPTER 4
Impacts of construction schedule delays on the duration of the case study project were analyzed by the help of Time Impact Analysis method. The results of application of the selected method and the discussions are given in this section under respective headings, presented with figures and tables.
In application of the TIA method, the accuracy of records which were used in the delay analysis was very important. To provide reliability of schedule delay analysis, inaccurate and unreliable records should not be used during the analysis process. Project changes, changing site conditions, official correspondences between project participants, time extension requests of the contractor were approved under the control of parties. Therefore, these records did not require any reliability control.
In this study, only approved records were collected and analyzed, as well interviews with the project parties were conducted at the construction site. After these steps, it was noticed that there had been many problems during the whole construction process inevitably resulting in delays in the as-planned schedule. The results of this delay analysis are presented in the following sections.
56
In this project, handing over of construction site (A1010) was a critical activity which affected subsequent activities in the schedule because of its total float being zero. According to the as-planned schedule A1010 activity should have been finished on 10 October, however the owner had some problems at that time because of organizational deficiencies. And this activity was finished on 26 October. Unless the handing over of construction site was finished, the following activities could not be started. There occurred 16-days delay in the as-planned schedule caused by the owner.
In this project, getting work permits from municipality (A1040) was again a critical activity which affected subsequent activities in the schedule because of its total float being zero. The work permits should have been taken until 16 November in regard to the revised 1st schedule; however the activity could not be finished until 8 December. Although the contractor performed his own tasks on time, there occurred delay caused by project architects as well as the provincial municipality.
During the application process for getting work permits, project architect presented related drawings to the municipality very late. On the other hand, the main responsibility lay with the provincial municipality in this delayed event, since the municipality misinformed the project architect about necessary documents at the beginning of the application. Therefore, this delayed event was a result of external factors.
57
Activity of concreting the ground floor (A1070) was again on the critical path as seen in Figure 3.2. Because of the delays on the previous activities, this activity was moved later as the all other activities had been postponed. This activity should have been finished on 23 February according to the revised 2nd schedule; however this activity was finished on 4 March. Some technical disputes and material procurement delays caused by the contractor occurred in this activity. Problems in organizing concrete subcontractors and concrete plant and delays in material procurement were main causes of these delays.
Unforeseeable weather conditions delayed formwork removal in the concreting activities (A1080) in the first floor. Because the weather was unusually cold rather than expected, the consulting company wanted to keep concrete in the formwork for longer period of time. This activity should have been finished on 28 February according to the revised 3rd schedule; however this activity was finished on 4 March. Since this activity was critical, the project completion duration extended. Unforeseeable weather conditions were the main causes of this delayed event and regarded as external factors.
5) Problems in Masonry
There were some problems in the activity of block masonry works (A1440). For these activities, architectural, mechanical and electrical drawings were not superposed appropriately. Because of the defective work of the mechanical and electrical subcontractors in terms of superposing system drawings, there occurred some delays in the block masonry works. This activity should have been finished on 16 June according to the revised 4th schedule; however this activity was
58
finished on 7 July. This delay was caused by the subcontractors, but the contractor is the responsible party for all failures and delays caused by subcontractors.
Consequently, the delays were researched from related records conscientiously and causes of delays were identified. According to obtained information, the result of this research is presented in Table 4.1 as a summary of delay identification. Table 4.1: Summary of Delay Identification No Delay Description Impacted Activity Name Handing Over of Construction Site Getting Work Permits Concreting the Ground Floor Concreting the First Floor Block Masonry Works Impacted Activity Code (IAC) A1010 A1040 A1070 A1080 A1440
1 2 3 4 5
Late start of handing over of construction site Getting work permits late from municipality Problems in concreting the ground floor Unforeseeable weather conditions Problems in masonry works
From related records, the causes of delays were researched and determined in the first step. These are also listed in the second column of Table 4.2 below. Then, types of delay factors were determined and given in the fourth column of the below table. Next, liabilities for delays were allocated between project participants and this can be seen in the fifth column with their ID Code given in the sixth column of the below Table. After allocation of liabilities to parties, types of delays according to their compensability were determined and the results are presented in the seventh column of the Table 4.2.
59
1 2
Late start of handing over of construction site Getting work permits late from municipality
A1010 A1040
Owner Related External Factor (Provincial Municipality, Project Architect) Contractor Related External Factor (Force Majeure) Contractor Related
3 4 5
Problems in concreting the ground floor Unforeseeable weather conditions Problems in masonry works
Delay (Procurement) Technical Disputes Unanticipated Events Failure (Subcontractor default, defective work)
IAC: Impacted Activity Code OR: Owner Related EF: External Factor CR: Contractor Related
60
Types of delays according to their compensability are presented in Table 4.2. A matrix showing the compensability of construction delays was formed and is presented below in Table 4.3. In this matrix, the distribution of the construction delays according to the degree of compensability can be seen.
Table 4.3: Matrix of Construction Delays According to the Compensability Compensable OR1 Excusable EF1 CR1 Non-excusable Not applicable CR2 Non-compensable EF2
As explained in section 3.2.3, the delayed activities were entered one by one and the schedule was updated to determine the project finish date. The results of the revisions of the schedules are presented in Table 4.4. The As-planned Schedule and other Revised Schedules are given in Appendix B.
In the schedule delay analysis of the case study it was seen that the project duration was changed when the activities on the critical path were delayed. Therefore, delays which affect the project completion are called critical delays and delays which do not affect the project completion are considered as noncritical delays, as noted in the literature review. For instance, the late start of handing over of construction site by owner and problems in concreting the ground floor caused by contractor extended the project duration because these delayed events were on the critical path or in other words these activities (A1010, A1070) had zero float as seen in the critical path method of the project (Figure 3.2).
61
1 2 3 4 5 6
----Late start of handing over of construction site Getting work permits late from municipality Problems in concreting the ground floor Unforeseeable weather conditions Problems in masonry works
IAC: Impacted Activity Code OR: Owner Related EF: External Factor CR: Contractor Related
62
While the project duration was extended because of construction schedule delays in the critical activities, inevitably cost and resources of the project were impacted from these delayed events. However, these impacted issues were not evaluated in this delay analysis.
Results of allocation of project delays among the parties are presented in Table 4.5. As it can be seen from this table, the owner caused delays extended the project by 16 day; while contractor caused delays were 31 day in totality. Also, there had been 10 day delays caused by external factors such as unforeseeable weather conditions, provincial municipality and project architects.
Table 4.5: Allocation of Project Delays to Parties No 1 2 Liable Party Owner Contractor Delay ID Code OR1 Subtotal CR1 CR2 Subtotal EF1 EF2 Subtotal Total Delay Amount of Delay 16 16 day 10 21 31 day 6 4 10 day 57 day
External Factor
Consequently, the project finish date was postponed from 16 October 2010 to 12 December 2010; i.e. the project was delayed by 57 days due to these five construction delays. This means that the project duration was extended by 15.4 % or in other words more than 1/6 of the estimated construction period.
63
These delays can further be categorized as 22-days excusable compensable delays, 31-days non-excusable delays and 4-days excusable non-compensable delays; which can be seen in Table 4.6. Table 4.6: Summary of Project Delays According to Compensability No 1 Type of Delay Excusable Compensable Excusable Non-compensable Non-excusable Delay ID Code OR1 EF1 Subtotal EF2 Subtotal CR1 CR2 Subtotal Total Delay Amount of Delay 16 6 22 day 4 4 day 10 21 31 day 57 day
2 3
Consequently, fines should have been paid by the contractor according to the related clauses of the contract because of 31-days non-excusable delays. On the other hand, the contractor should have been given a time extension of 26-days due to 22-days excusable compensable delays and 4-days excusable non-compensable delays which were beyond the control of the contractor.
The delayed events of this case study which extended the project duration were caused due to organizational deficiencies of the owner, the bureaucracy of the provincial municipality, the lack of detail drawings during the municipality application, the lack of experience of the contractor, problems in material procurement, unforeseeable weather conditions and shortages of qualified employees of the subcontractors. It was observed that of these all except one correspond to the important causes of delays as reported by Arditi et al. (1985) in public projects of Turkish construction industry (see Chapter 2 of this thesis).
64
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Construction schedule delays in a project can cause major problems for contractors and owners, resulting in costly disputes, controversial issues and adverse relationships between all the project participants. As Arditi et al. (1985) point out, the most important causes of delays in public projects of Turkey are shortage of resources, financial difficulties and organizational deficiencies of public agencies and contracting companies, delays in design work, large quantities of extra work and frequent change orders.
In the case of the project analyzed in this study, the causes of the delayed events can be listed as follows:
1. Organizational deficiencies of the owner in handing over of construction site, 2. The bureaucracy of the provincial municipality, the lack of detail drawings during the municipality application, 3. The lack of experience of the contractor in organizing concrete subcontractors, problems in material procurement, 4. Unforeseeable weather conditions, 5. Shortages of qualified employees of the subcontractors, 6. Delays in choice of material and the subcontractor for the fenestration, 7. Delays in choice of material and the subcontractor for paving tiles of the pool area, 8. Delays in the approval for gas connection by the gas company,
65
9. Uneven settling of floor area in one of the rooms, which had to be reconcreted, 10. Change in access route to the site, 11. Extra work load in steel roof, 12. Delays in the approval of aluminum cladding wall subcontractor, 13. Change in system details of generator room.
These were 13 delays caused due to both critical and non-critical activities. Of these all except one correspond to the causes of delays mentioned by Arditi et al. (1985) in the previous sections. The fourth one was due to force majeure and therefore beyond the control of all parties.
According to the TIA schedule delay analysis the delays due to the critical activities extended the project duration by 57 days in totality i.e. by 15.4 % of the estimated construction period. On the other hand, the delays due to the noncritical activities did not impact the total duration.
The reason for selecting the Time Impact Analysis (TIA) method was that it can display the progress of construction works step by step with the help of PRIMAVERA software. The main advantage of this method is that the situation of construction on the updated dates could be pictured clearly. It is important for the delay analysis to be able to reflect the actual process of the construction in order to reach an accurate analysis of construction schedule delays. The delayed events are entered into the as-planned schedule respectively to see the changes on the project. Therefore, this analysis method is the most realistic. On the other hand, the most important constraint of TIA method is that the available records, related data and as-planned schedule should be accurate in order to obtain accurate and clear results; otherwise, the analysis will be incorrect. Another drawback of the method is that the analysis of concurrent delays is difficult in terms of understanding the net portion of the liability. Despite these drawbacks,
66
this selected method is the most reliable as recommended by many researchers and the best technique for determining amount of time extension caused by construction schedule delays.
Based on this study, some general recommendations are presented here, which could also have been useful in minimizing or avoiding the impacts of the construction delays in the project analyzed.
The design of the project should be finalized with all details before tendering the work so as to avoid change orders by the owners. Owner should allocate sufficient time and adequate finances for the design stage of the project. The selection of the contractor should be done through a pre-qualification of the firms. The owners should mobilize all resources and get the necessary permissions before signing the contract. The contract should include clauses of incentive for early completion. The schedule should be prepared and agreed over by both the contractors and the consulting companies. The contractor should employ qualified work teams and provide in-house worker training in order to improve managerial and technical skills. The contractor should also have a project manager in his team to check the progress of work and ensure timely delivery of materials. The last but most important issue is to establish a healthy communication between all parties in order to solve problems in a timely manner.
67
REFERENCES
1. Abd El-Razek, M. E., H. A. Bassioni, and A. M. Mobarak (2008) Causes of Delay in Building Construction Projects in Egypt, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134, No. 11, pp.831-841. 2. Ahmed, S. M., S. Azhar, P. Kappagantula, and M. Castillo (2003) Construction Delays in Florida: An Empirical Study, (http://www.scribd.com/doc/28215106/Construction-Delays-in-Florida-aStudy) Accessed on: 08/07/2010. 3. Alkass, S., M. Mazerolle, and F. Harris (1996) Construction delay analysis techniques, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 14, Issue 5, pp 375-394. 4. Arditi, D., G. T. Akan, and S. Gurdamar (1985) Reasons for Delays in Public Projects in Turkey, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 3, pp 171-181. 5. Arditi, D., and T. Pattanakitchamroon (2008) Analysis Methods in TimeBased Claims, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134, No. 4 pp. 242-252. 6. Arkan, M. and . Dikmen (2004) Construction Engineering and Management, Lecture Notes, Middle East Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering. 7. Assaf, S. A., M. Al-Khalil, and M. Al-Hazmi (1995) Causes of delay in large building construction projects, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 45-50. 8. Baldwin, J. R., J. M. Manthei, H. Rothbart, and R. B. Harris (1971) Causes of Delay in the Construction Industry, Journal of the Construction Engineering Division, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 177-187. 9. Barrie, D. S. and B. C. Paulson (1992) Professional Construction Management: Including CM, Design-Construct, and General Contracting, McGraw-Hill, USA. 68
10. Callahan, M. T., D. G. Quackenbush, and J. E. Rowings (1992) Construction Project Scheduling, McGraw-Hill, USA. 11. Faridi, A. S., and S. M. El-Sayegh (2006) Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction industry, Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24, Issue 11, pp. 1167 1176. 12. Frimpong, Y., J. Oluwoye, and L. Crawford (2003) Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, Issue 5, pp 321-326. 13. Halpin, D. W. and R. W. Woodhead (1998) Construction management, John Wiley, New York. 14. Hegazy, T., and W. Menesi (2008) Delay Analysis under Multiple Baseline Updates, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134, No. 8 pp. 575-582. 15. Hegazy, T., and K. Zhang (2005) Daily Windows Delay Analysis, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 5 pp. 505-512. 16. Hinze, J. (1993) Construction contracts, McGraw-Hill, New York. 17. Kaliba, C., M. Muya, and K. Mumba (2009) Cost escalation and schedule delays in road construction projects in Zambia, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, Issue 5, pp 522-531. 18. Kaoa C. and J. Yangb (2009) Comparison of windows-based delay analysis methods, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, Issue 4, pp 408-418. 19. Kartam, S. (1999) Generic Methodology For Analyzing Delay Claims, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125, No. 6 pp.409-419. 20. Kelleher, T. J. (2005) Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP's common sense construction law : a practical guide for the construction Professional, John Wiley, New Jersey, USA. 69
21. Kim, Y., K. Kim, and D. Shin (2005) Delay Analysis Method Using Delay Section, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 11 pp. 1155-1164. 22. Lee, H., H. Ryu, J. Yu, and J. Kim (2005) Method for Calculating Schedule Delay Considering Lost Productivity, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 11 pp. 1147-1154. 23. Levy, S. M. (2006) Project Management in Construction, McGrawHill, USA. 24. Lo, T. Y., I. W. H. Fung, and K. C. F. Tung (2006) Construction Delays in Hong Kong Civil Engineering Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132, No. 6, pp. 636-649. 25. Mansfield, N. R., O. O. Ugwu, and T. Doran (1994) Causes of delay and cost overruns in Nigerian construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp. 254-260. 26. Mbabazi, A., T. Hegazy, and F. Saccomanno (2005) Modified But-for Method for Delay Analysis, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 10, pp. 1142-1144. 27. Mubarak, S. (2005) Construction Project Scheduling and Control, Pearson Prentice Hall, USA. 28. Ndekugri, I., N. Braimah, and R. Gameson (2008) Delay Analysis within Construction Contracting Organizations, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134, No. 9, pp.692-700. 29. Nguyen, L. D. (2007) The Dynamics of Float, Logic, Resource Allocation, and Delay Timing in Forensic Schedule Analysis and Construction Delay Claims, Ph. D. Dissertation Thesis, Department of Engineering-Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. 30. Nguyen, L. D. and W. Ibbs (2008) FLORA: New Forensic Schedule Analysis Technique, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134, No. 7, pp. 483-491.
70
31. Oberlender, G. D. (2000) Project Management for Engineering and Constrcution, McGraw-Hill, Singapore. 32. Odaba, E. (2009) Models for Estimating Construction Duration: An Application for Selected Buildings on the Metu Campus, Unpublished Master Thesis, METU, Turkey. 33. Odeh, A. M. and H. T. Battaineh (2002) Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, Issue 1, pp 67-73. 34. Oliveros, A. V. O. and A. R.Fayek (2005) Fuzzy Logic Approach for Activity Delay Analysis and Schedule Updating, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 1 pp. 42-51. 35. Oxley, R. and J. Poskitt (1996) Management Techniques Applied to the Construction Industry, Blackwell Science Publishing, Great Britain. 36. Shi, J. J., S. O. Cheung, and D. Arditi (2001) Construction Delay Computation Method, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127, No. 1 pp. 60-65. 37. Smith, N. J. (2002) Engineering Project Management, Blackwell Science Publishing, USA. 38. Society of Construction Law (2002) The Society of Construction Law Delay and Distruption Protocol, Oxfordshire, England. 39. Trauner, T. J., W. A. Manginelli, J. S. Lowe, M. F. Nagata and B. J. Furniss (2009) Construction Delays: Understanding Them Clearly, Analyzing Them Correctly, Elsevier Inc., USA. 40. Yang, J. B., P. C. Yin, and C. K. Kao (2007) Comparison of various delay analysis methodologies for construction projects, International Structural Engineering Conference. 41. Wickwire, J.M., T.J. Driscoll, S.B. Hurlbut, and S. B. Hillman (2003) Construction Scheduling: Preparation, Liability, and Claims Construction Library Law, 2nd ed., Aspen Publishers, USA. 42. http://www.long-intl.com/brochures/WindowsSchedAnal.pdf, accessed 10/08/2010.
71
1,5
APPENDIX A
(Source: Abd El-Razek, Bassioni, Mobarak, 2008) Group Delay causes from literature Financing by contractor during construction Delays in contractors progress payment by owner Interviews outcome Selected Delay causes resulting from interviews Financing by contractor during construction Delays in contractors payment by owner Partial payments during construction Shortage of labor Poor labor productivity
Financing
Selected
Partial payments during construction Manpower Shortage of labor Labor skill Nationality of laborers Labor injuries Labor disputes and strikes Labor and management relations
Selected
72
TABLE A 1: CONTINUED
Changes
Selected
Design errors made by designers (due to unfamiliarity with local conditions and environment) Foundation conditions encountered in the field
Selected
Design changes by owner or his agent during construction Design errors made by designers Unexpected foundation conditions encountered in the field Mistakes in soil investigation Errors committed due to lack of experience
Selected
Mistakes in soil investigation Errors committed during field construction at job site Water table conditions on site Geological problems on site Contractual relationships The relationship between different subcontractors schedules in the execution of the project The conflict between contractor and consultant
Selected Selected
Selected
Slowness of the owner decision making process Poor organization of the contractor or consultant
Selected
Selected
The relationship between different subcontractors schedules The conflict in point of view between contractor and consultant Slowness of the owner decision making process Poor organization of the contractor or consultant
73
TABLE A 1: CONTINUED
Difficulty of coordination between various parties (contractor, subcontractor, owner, consultant) working on the project
Selected
Nonutilization of professional construction/contractual management Controlling subcontractors by general contractors in the execution of work
Selected
Selected
Difficulty of coordination between various parties (contractor, subcontractor, owner, consultant) working on the project Nonutilization of professional construction/contr actual management Controlling subcontractors main contractor in the execution of work
Uncooperative owners Insufficient communication between the owner and designer in design phase Legal disputes between various parties in the construction project Poor contract management Nonadherence to contract conditions Mistakes and discrepacies in contract documents Project delivery systems used (design-build, general contracting, turnkeyetc.) The joint ownership of the projects
Already represented Already represented Already represented Already represented Already represented Already represented Deleted
Deleted
74
TABLE A 1: CONTINUED
Environment
Equipment
The unavailability of financial incentives for contractor to finish ahead of schedule Negotiations and obtaining of contracts Contract modifications Completeness of project information Hot weather effect on construction activities Rain effect on construction activities Flood Hurricane Wind damage Fire Insufficient available utilities on site Social and cultural factors Shortage in equipments Unskilled operators Equipment productivity Equipment failure Slow delivery of equipment Lack of high-technology equipment
Deleted
Deleted Deleted Deleted Merged Merged Merged Merged Merged Deleted Deleted Deleted Selected Selected Selected Already represented Already represented Deleted Weather effect
75
TABLE A 1: CONTINUED
Rules& regulations
Selected Selected
Building permits approval process Changes in laws and regulations Safety rules OSHA regulations Building regulations in coastal regions Coastal construction control line permit Florida administrative code National flood insurance program Obtaining permits for laborers Building codes used in the design of the projects Materials Shortage in construction materials Materials changes in types and specifications during construction
Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Already represented Selected Shortage in construction materials Changes in materials types and specifications during construction Slow delivery of materials
Selected
Slow delivery of materials Damage of materials in storage Imported materials and plant items
76
TABLE A 1: CONTINUED
Scheduling& control
Lack of database in estimating activity duration and resources Inspection and testing procedures used in the project Application of quality control based on foreign specification Accidents during construction Lack of training personnel& management support to model the construction operation Judgment and experience of the involved people in estimating time and resources Inadequate early planning of the project Poor subcontractor performance Often change of subcontractors Preparation and approval of shop drawings
Selected
Selected
Selected
Lack of database in estimating activity duration and resources Inspection and testing procedures used in the project Application of quality control based on foreign specification Accidents during construction
Already represented
77
TABLE A 1: CONTINUED
Merged
Preparation of scheduling networks and revisions by consultant while construction is in progress Traffic control regulation practiced in the site of the project Damage to structure Staffing problems Transportation delays Inadequate review Different site conditions Construction methods Timeliness of project information Time spent to find appropriate subcontractors for each task
Deleted
Deleted
Deleted Deleted Already represented Deleted Deleted Deleted Already represented Deleted
78
APPENDIX B
PRIMAVERA SCHEDULES
79
08-Jan-11 13:17
2010
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
2011
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
370 09-Oct-09
16-Oct-10
Q2
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
122 01-Apr-10
01-Aug-10
76
Excavation works
35 01-Apr-10*
05-May-10
76
Excavation works
A1930
45 06-May-10
19-Jun-10
76
A1940
75 06-May-10
20-Jul-10
82
A1950
21 06-Jul-10
26-Jul-10
82
A1960
15 06-May-10
20-May-10
106
A1970
21 20-Jun-10
11-Jul-10
76
A1980
21 12-Jul-10
01-Aug-10
76
A1990
21 21-May-10
10-Jun-10
127
92 17-Jul-10
16-Oct-10
30 17-Jul-10
15-Aug-10
62
A2010
30 29-Aug-10
27-Sep-10
A2020
Provisional Acceptance
7 18-Sep-10
24-Sep-10
Provisional Acceptance
A2030
21 25-Sep-10
15-Oct-10
A2040
1 16-Oct-10
16-Oct-10
45 09-Oct-09
22-Nov-09
Signing contract
1 09-Oct-09
09-Oct-09
A1010
1 10-Oct-09
10-Oct-09
A1020
Mobilization work
21 01-Nov-09
21-Nov-09
Mobilization work
Approval of key staff
Getting work permits (municipality)
Getting consultant permits to work in construction site
29-Aug-10, ELECTRICAL WORKS
18-Feb-10, Context of Construction works
Electrical conduit piping
Installation of roof heater wire
A1030
21 10-Oct-09
21 11-Oct-09
1 22-Nov-09
30-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
22
0
A1040
A1050
22-Nov-09
29-Aug-10
18-Feb-10
15-Feb-10
06-Feb-10
18-Feb-10
29-Aug-10
01-Apr-10
01-Apr-10
06-May-10
29-Aug-10
06-May-10
29-Jul-10
06-May-10
29-Jul-10
06-May-10
29-Jul-10
16-May-10
04-Aug-10
13-Feb-10
0
48
239
64
251
239
48
74
64
74
0
74
79
74
79
74
79
64
73
ELECTRICAL WORKS
Context of Construction works
A1170
A1180
A1190
A1670
A1680
A1690
A1700
A1710
A1720
A1730
A1740
A1750
A1760
A1770
A1780
A1790
210 31-Jan-10
19 31-Jan-10
15 01-Feb-10
7 31-Jan-10
12 07-Feb-10
203 07-Feb-10
45 16-Feb-10
45 16-Feb-10
35 02-Apr-10
11 19-Aug-10
35 02-Apr-10
15 15-Jul-10
35 02-Apr-10
15 15-Jul-10
35 02-Apr-10
15 15-Jul-10
45 02-Apr-10
21 15-Jul-10
7 07-Feb-10
244
64
64
64
64
76
71
71
76
251
251
76
62
62
90
A1800
A1810
A1820
A1830
A1840
A1850
A1860
21 17-May-10
45 07-Jun-10
7 23-Jul-10
15 30-Jul-10
60 02-Jun-10
45 18-Apr-10
65 02-Jun-10
196 17-Jan-10
21 17-Jan-10
21 17-Jan-10
06-Jun-10
22-Jul-10
29-Jul-10
13-Aug-10
01-Aug-10
01-Jun-10
06-Aug-10
01-Aug-10
06-Feb-10
06-Feb-10
Installation of generators
Approval of Elevator Company
Installation of Elevators
01-Aug-10, MECHANICAL WORKS
06-Feb-10, Context of Construction works
Installation of flushing system
01-Aug-10, Context of Finishing works
Installation of waste and clean water plumbing
Installation of fire system plumbing
Plumbing of heating and cooling equipments
Installation of chiller unit and equipment
Installation of heating boilers and equipments
Installation of radiator and convector
Installation of ventilation duct
Installation of exhaust fan (aspirator)
Installation of air conditioning plant
Installation of ventilation flap
Installation of outdoor swimming pool plumbing and equipment
Installation of indoor swimming pool plumbing and equipment
MECHANICAL WORKS
Context of Construction works
A1160
A1540
A1550
A1560
A1570
165 17-Feb-10
60 17-Feb-10
60 14-Mar-10
75 13-Apr-10
21 27-Jun-10
01-Aug-10
17-Apr-10
12-May-10
26-Jun-10
18-Jul-10
90
A1580
21 27-Jun-10
18-Jul-10
90
A1590
21 01-Jul-10
22-Jul-10
86
A1600
45 18-May-10
01-Jul-10
62
A1610
7 02-Jul-10
09-Jul-10
62
A1620
7 10-Jul-10
16-Jul-10
62
A1630
15 02-Jul-10
17-Jul-10
91
A1640
21 12-Jun-10
02-Jul-10
96
A1650
30 12-Jun-10
12-Jul-10
96
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Summary
Page 1 of 2
80
08-Jan-11 13:17
2010
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
2011
Q3 Q4 Installation of kitchen equipment and fittings
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
A1660
30 02-Jul-10
01-Aug-10
76
226 08-Feb-10
22-Sep-10
24
145 17-Feb-10
12-Jul-10
96
14 17-Feb-10
02-Mar-10
189
A1210
35 17-Feb-10
23-Mar-10
A1220
15 24-Mar-10
07-Apr-10
37
A1230
Plastering
10 03-Mar-10
12-Mar-10
217
Plastering
A1240
35 08-Apr-10
12-May-10
37
A1250
35 28-Apr-10
01-Jun-10
37
A1260
7 26-May-10
01-Jun-10
136
A1270
40 02-Jun-10
12-Jul-10
37
137 03-Mar-10
18-Jul-10
90
25 02-Jun-10
26-Jun-10
31
A1290
15 28-Apr-10
12-May-10
31
A1300
15 12-Jun-10
26-Jun-10
111
A1310
Plastering
10 17-Mar-10
26-Mar-10
203
Plastering
A1320
21 27-Jun-10
18-Jul-10
31
A1330
14 03-Mar-10
16-Mar-10
189
A1340
35 24-Mar-10
27-Apr-10
A1350
45 13-May-10
26-Jun-10
31
A1360
Constructive partition walls (Wooden, plasterboard, compact laminate, glass etc.) 35 13-May-10
16-Jun-10
121
154 17-Mar-10
18-Aug-10
59
28 16-Jun-10
15 12-May-10
15 29-Jun-10
10 31-Mar-10
35 15-Jul-10
14 17-Mar-10
14 28-Apr-10
35 27-May-10
226 08-Feb-10
35 03-Apr-10
21 19-Aug-10
35 19-Aug-10
15 19-Mar-10
21 17-Feb-10
150 09-Mar-10
115 23-Feb-10
15 08-Feb-10*
106 01-Nov-09
84 23-Nov-09
28 23-Nov-09
14-Jul-10
26-May-10
0
0
A1380
A1390
14-Jul-10
20-Jun-10
09-Apr-10
18-Aug-10
30-Mar-10
11-May-10
30-Jun-10
22-Sep-10
07-May-10
08-Sep-10
22-Sep-10
02-Apr-10
09-Mar-10
06-Aug-10
17-Jun-10
22-Feb-10
16-Feb-10
16-Feb-10
20-Dec-09
94
117
189
0
189
0
0
24
161
38
24
161
220
71
120
120
241
0
0
A1400
A1410
A1420
A1430
A1440
A1450
A1460
A1470
A1480
A1490
A1500
A1510
A1520
A1530
Constructive partition walls (Wooden, plasterboard, compact laminate, glass etc.) 25 27-May-10
Plastering
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Pouring Concrete
A1060
A1070
56 05-Dec-09
37 20-Dec-09
20 28-Jan-10
35 13-Jan-10
21 17-Jan-10
35 13-Jan-10
28 18-Jan-10
25 13-Jan-10
15 23-Jan-10
90 01-Nov-09
45 01-Nov-09
45 26-Nov-09
45 01-Nov-09
31-Jan-10
27-Jan-10
16-Feb-10
16-Feb-10
06-Feb-10
16-Feb-10
14-Feb-10
06-Feb-10
06-Feb-10
31-Jan-10
15-Dec-09
11-Jan-10
15-Dec-09
0
0
0
241
251
71
149
71
71
A1080
A1150
First Floor
Cladding concrete
Construction of staircase carried by steel column
Installation of U and L steel sections in the roof
Construction of eaves ends and steel sections
Roof cladding (Trapeze, rock wool, EPDM, etc.)
Installation of aluminum plates
Sewerage and rain water saver systems
Sewerage and road gully work
Finishing of incomplete reinforced concrete works of existing tunneling
Fire-protection water system and water supply system
Cladding concrete
16-Feb-10, Steel Works
Construction of staircase carried by steel column
Installation of U and L steel sections in the roof
Construction of eaves ends and steel sections
Roof cladding (Trapeze, rock wool, EPDM, etc.)
Cladding of eaves ends in the steel roof (Galvanised sheet, Rock wool, EPDM, waterproofing and composite panel)
Installation of aluminum plates
Steel Works
A1090
A1100
A1110
A1120
A1130
A1140
A1880
A1890
A1900
A1910
06-Feb-10 Cladding of eaves ends in the steel roof (Galvanised sheet, Rock wool, EPDM, waterproofing 15 23-Jan-10 and composite panel)
71
257
277
277
257
Infrastructure Works
21 16-Dec-09
07-Jan-10
281
A1920
45 16-Dec-09
31-Jan-10
257
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Summary
Page 2 of 2
81
08-Jan-11 14:24
2010
2011
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
01-Nov-10
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
386
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
122
0%
01-Apr-10
01-Aug-10
92
21
0%
0% 12-Jul-10
01-Aug-10
92
A1930
45
0%
0% 06-May-10
19-Jun-10
92
A1970
21
0%
0% 20-Jun-10
11-Jul-10
92
A1960
15
0%
0% 06-May-10
20-May-10
122
A1950
21
0%
0% 06-Jul-10
26-Jul-10
98
A1870
Excavation works
35
0%
0% 01-Apr-10*
05-May-10
92
A1990
21
0%
0% 21-May-10
10-Jun-10
143
A1940
75
0%
0% 06-May-10
20-Jul-10
98
92
0%
02-Aug-10
01-Nov-10
30
0%
0% 02-Aug-10
31-Aug-10
62
A2010
30
0%
0% 14-Sep-10
13-Oct-10
A2020
Provisional Acceptance
0%
0% 04-Oct-10
10-Oct-10
A2030
21
0%
0% 11-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
A2040
0%
0% 01-Nov-10
01-Nov-10
61
0%
09-Oct-09 A
08-Dec-09
Signing contract
100%
100% 09-Oct-09 A
09-Oct-09 A
A1020
Mobilization work
Handing over of construction site
Getting work permits (municipality)
21
1
0%
100%
0% 17-Nov-09
100% 26-Oct-09 A
07-Dec-09
26-Oct-09 A
0
0
0
21
48
48
79
74
74
74
64
74
64
79
79
64
Mobilization work
A1010
A1040
21
1
21
210
203
15
35
35
35
45
35
45
15
15
21
7
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 27-Oct-09
0% 08-Dec-09
0% 27-Oct-09
16-Feb-10
23-Feb-10
0% 31-Jul-10
0% 18-Apr-10
0% 18-Apr-10
0% 18-Apr-10
0% 18-Apr-10
0% 18-Apr-10
0% 04-Mar-10
0% 31-Jul-10
0% 31-Jul-10
0% 02-Jun-10
0% 08-Aug-10
16-Nov-09
08-Dec-09
16-Nov-09
14-Sep-10
14-Sep-10
14-Aug-10
22-May-10
22-May-10
22-May-10
01-Jun-10
22-May-10
17-Apr-10
14-Aug-10
14-Aug-10
22-Jun-10
14-Aug-10
A1050
A1030
ELECTRICAL WORKS
Context of Finishing works
A1720
A1730
A1750
A1710
A1770
A1690
A1680
A1740
A1760
A1800
A1820
Outlet installation
Laying of weak current cables
Laying of TV, Telephone, Data cables
Laying of outlets and power cables
Laying of fire detection system cables
Laying indoor lighting cable
Installation of weak current cable trays
Installation of wall speakers and camera
Installation of TV, Telephone, and Data outlets
Installation of trunk line and supply cables
Installation of transformer
64
74
64
0
76
73
71
64
A1670
A1830
A1700
A1840
A1780
A1860
A1810
A1790
45
15
11
60
21
65
45
7
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 04-Mar-10
0% 15-Aug-10
0% 04-Sep-10
0% 18-Jun-10
0% 31-Jul-10
0% 18-Jun-10
0% 23-Jun-10
0% 23-Feb-10
17-Apr-10
29-Aug-10
14-Sep-10
17-Aug-10
20-Aug-10
22-Aug-10
07-Aug-10
01-Mar-10
17-Jun-10
06-Mar-10
22-Feb-10
06-Mar-10
Installation of generators
Installation of fire warning, fire alarm and detection system
Installation of Elevators
Installation of A.G wire and screens
Grounding and installation of lightning conductor and grounding connections
Approval of Elevator Company
06-Mar-10, Context of Construction works
Installation of roof heater wire
Installation of lightning conductor
Electrical conduit piping
17-Aug-10, MECHANICAL WORKS
17-Aug-10, Context of Finishing works
Plumbing of heating and cooling equipments
Installation of waste and clean water plumbing
Installation of ventilation flap
Installation of ventilation duct
244
71
239
251
239
A1850
A1180
A1190
A1170
45
19
7
12
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 04-May-10
16-Feb-10
0% 16-Feb-10
0% 23-Feb-10
15
0%
0% 17-Feb-10
03-Mar-10
64
MECHANICAL WORKS
Context of Finishing works
A1560
196
0%
02-Feb-10
17-Aug-10
76
165
0%
05-Mar-10
17-Aug-10
76
75
0%
0% 29-Apr-10
13-Jul-10
90
A1540
60
0%
0% 05-Mar-10
03-May-10
62
A1630
15
0%
0% 19-Jul-10
02-Aug-10
91
A1600
45
0%
0% 03-Jun-10
18-Jul-10
62
A1590
21
0%
0% 18-Jul-10
07-Aug-10
86
A1640
21
0%
0% 28-Jun-10
19-Jul-10
96
A1660
30
0%
0% 19-Jul-10
17-Aug-10
76
A1650
30
0%
0% 28-Jun-10
28-Jul-10
96
A1580
21
0%
0% 14-Jul-10
03-Aug-10
90
A1550
60
0%
0% 30-Mar-10
28-May-10
62
A1610
7
21
7
21
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 19-Jul-10
0% 14-Jul-10
0% 26-Jul-10
02-Feb-10
25-Jul-10
03-Aug-10
01-Aug-10
22-Feb-10
62
90
62
251
A1570
A1620
Actual Work
Summary
Page 1 of 2
Remaining Work
% Complete
82
08-Jan-11 14:24
2010 Q2 Installation of flushing system
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
2011
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
A1160
21
22-Feb-10
251
242
0%
08-Feb-10
08-Oct-10
24
145
0%
05-Mar-10
28-Jul-10
96
35
0%
0% 14-May-10
17-Jun-10
37
A1220
15
0%
0% 09-Apr-10
23-Apr-10
37
A1230
Plastering
10
0%
0% 19-Mar-10
28-Mar-10
217
Plastering
A1260
0%
0% 11-Jun-10
17-Jun-10
136
A1240
35
0%
0% 24-Apr-10
28-May-10
37
A1270
40
0%
0% 18-Jun-10
28-Jul-10
37
A1200
14
0%
0% 05-Mar-10
18-Mar-10
189
A1210
35
0%
0% 05-Mar-10
08-Apr-10
137
0%
19-Mar-10
03-Aug-10
90
25
0%
0% 18-Jun-10
13-Jul-10
31
A1290
15
0%
0% 14-May-10
28-May-10
31
A1310
Plastering
10
0%
0% 02-Apr-10
11-Apr-10
203
Plastering
A1300
15
0%
0% 28-Jun-10
13-Jul-10
111
A1350
45
0%
0% 29-May-10
13-Jul-10
31
A1360
0%
0% 29-May-10
02-Jul-10
121
A1320
21
0%
0% 14-Jul-10
03-Aug-10
31
A1330
14
35
154
0%
0%
0%
0% 19-Mar-10
0% 09-Apr-10
02-Apr-10
01-Apr-10
13-May-10
03-Sep-10
189
0
A1340
A1370
A1380
A1410
A1390
A1450
A1400
A1420
A1430
A1440
A1510
A1480
A1500
A1460
A1470
A1490
A1530
59
0
0
189
94
0
117
0
189
0
24
71
24
220
161
38
161
28
15
10
15
35
35
14
14
242
150
35
21
35
21
15
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 02-Jul-10
0% 28-May-10
0% 16-Apr-10
0% 16-Jul-10
0% 12-Jun-10
0% 12-Jun-10
0% 31-Jul-10
0% 02-Apr-10
0% 14-May-10
08-Feb-10
0% 25-Mar-10
0% 04-Sep-10
0% 05-Mar-10
0% 19-Apr-10
0% 04-Sep-10
0% 04-Apr-10
30-Jul-10
11-Jun-10
25-Apr-10
30-Jul-10
17-Jul-10
07-Jul-10
03-Sep-10
15-Apr-10
27-May-10
08-Oct-10
22-Aug-10
08-Oct-10
25-Mar-10
23-May-10
24-Sep-10
18-Apr-10
15
115
106
84
56
37
20
28
35
25
35
15
21
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 08-Feb-10*
0% 23-Feb-10
17-Nov-09
09-Dec-09
0% 21-Dec-09
0% 07-Jan-10
0% 13-Feb-10
0% 09-Dec-09
29-Jan-10
0% 29-Jan-10
0% 29-Jan-10
0% 08-Feb-10
0% 02-Feb-10
22-Feb-10
17-Jun-10
04-Mar-10
04-Mar-10
16-Feb-10
12-Feb-10
04-Mar-10
07-Jan-10
04-Mar-10
136
136
241
0
0
0
0
0
241
A1520
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Pouring Concrete
A1070
A1080
A1150
A1060
Ground Floor
First Floor
Cladding concrete
Basement Floor (Insulation, lean concrete and reinforced concrete works)
Roof cladding (Trapeze, rock wool, EPDM, etc.)
Steel Works
A1120
22-Feb-10
04-Mar-10
22-Feb-10
22-Feb-10
71
71
71
251
A1100
A1140
A1090
A1110
28
0%
0% 03-Feb-10
02-Mar-10
149
A1130
Cladding of eaves ends in the steel roof (Galvanised sheet, Rock wool, EPDM, waterproofing 15 0% and composite 0% panel) 08-Feb-10
22-Feb-10
71
Infrastructure Works
A1890
90
0%
17-Nov-09
16-Feb-10
257
45
0%
0% 12-Dec-09
27-Jan-10
277
A1880
45
0%
0% 17-Nov-09
02-Jan-10
277
A1920
45
0%
0% 03-Jan-10
16-Feb-10
257
A1910
21
0%
0% 03-Jan-10
23-Jan-10
281
A1900
45
0%
0% 17-Nov-09
02-Jan-10
257
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Summary
Page 2 of 2
83
08-Jan-11 14:46
2010
2011
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
07-Nov-10
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
392
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
122
0%
01-Apr-10
01-Aug-10
98
Excavation works
35
0%
0% 01-Apr-10*
05-May-10
98
A1960
15
0%
0% 06-May-10
20-May-10
128
A1990
21
0%
0% 21-May-10
10-Jun-10
149
A1930
45
0%
0% 06-May-10
19-Jun-10
98
A1970
21
0%
0% 20-Jun-10
11-Jul-10
98
A1940
75
0%
0% 06-May-10
20-Jul-10
104
A1950
21
0%
0% 06-Jul-10
26-Jul-10
104
A1980
21
0%
0% 12-Jul-10
01-Aug-10
98
92
0%
08-Aug-10
07-Nov-10
30
0%
0% 08-Aug-10
06-Sep-10
62
A2020
Provisional Acceptance
0%
0% 10-Oct-10
16-Oct-10
A2010
30
0%
0% 20-Sep-10
19-Oct-10
A2030
21
0%
0% 17-Oct-10
06-Nov-10
A2040
0%
0% 07-Nov-10
07-Nov-10
62
0%
09-Oct-09 A
15-Dec-09
Signing contract
100%
100% 09-Oct-09 A
09-Oct-09 A
A1010
100%
100% 26-Oct-09 A
26-Oct-09 A
17-Nov-09 A
A1030
A1040
21
21
100%
100%
100% 27-Oct-09 A
100% 27-Oct-09 A
08-Dec-09 A
0
48
48
244
74
64
74
74
74
74
64
71
64
64
A1020
A1050
Mobilization work
Getting consultant permits to work in construction site
21
1
210
203
7
45
45
35
35
35
35
45
45
21
45
15
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Mobilization work
20-Sep-10, ELECTRICAL WORKS
20-Sep-10, Context of Finishing works
ELECTRICAL WORKS
Context of Finishing works
A1790
A1670
A1680
A1710
A1690
A1730
A1750
A1770
A1850
A1800
A1810
A1740
20-Sep-10
20-Sep-10
08-Mar-10
24-Apr-10
24-Apr-10
29-May-10
29-May-10
29-May-10
29-May-10
08-Jun-10
23-Jun-10
29-Jun-10
14-Aug-10
20-Aug-10
20-Aug-10
20-Aug-10
21-Aug-10
23-Aug-10
26-Aug-10
28-Aug-10
05-Sep-10
79
79
79
64
76
73
71
64
A1720
A1760
A1820
A1840
A1780
A1860
A1830
A1700
A1180
A1170
A1190
Outlet installation
Installation of TV, Telephone, and Data outlets
Installation of transformer
Installation of generators
Installation of fire warning, fire alarm and detection system
Installation of Elevators
Installation of O.G store equipment
Installation of lighting armatures and switches
Installation of roof heater wire
Electrical conduit piping
Installation of lightning conductor
15
15
7
60
21
65
15
11
19
7
15
12
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 06-Aug-10
0% 06-Aug-10
0% 14-Aug-10
0% 24-Jun-10
0% 06-Aug-10
0% 24-Jun-10
0% 21-Aug-10
0% 10-Sep-10
22-Feb-10
0% 22-Feb-10
0% 23-Feb-10
0% 01-Mar-10
20-Sep-10
13-Mar-10
01-Mar-10
10-Mar-10
0
239
251
64
13-Mar-10
239
MECHANICAL WORKS
Context of Finishing works
A1540
196
0%
08-Feb-10
23-Aug-10
76
165
0%
11-Mar-10
23-Aug-10
76
60
0%
0% 11-Mar-10
09-May-10
62
A1550
60
0%
0% 05-Apr-10
03-Jun-10
62
A1560
75
0%
0% 05-May-10
19-Jul-10
90
A1600
45
0%
0% 09-Jun-10
24-Jul-10
62
A1640
21
0%
0% 04-Jul-10
25-Jul-10
96
A1610
0%
0% 25-Jul-10
31-Jul-10
62
A1650
30
0%
0% 04-Jul-10
03-Aug-10
96
A1620
0%
0% 01-Aug-10
07-Aug-10
62
A1630
15
0%
0% 25-Jul-10
08-Aug-10
91
A1570
21
0%
0% 20-Jul-10
09-Aug-10
90
A1580
21
0%
0% 20-Jul-10
09-Aug-10
90
86
76
251
A1590
A1660
21
30
21
0%
0%
0%
0% 24-Jul-10
0% 25-Jul-10
08-Feb-10
13-Aug-10
23-Aug-10
01-Mar-10
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Summary
Page 1 of 2
84
08-Jan-11 14:46
2010 Q2 Installation of flushing system
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
2011
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
A1160
21
01-Mar-10
251
248
0%
08-Feb-10
14-Oct-10
24
145
0%
11-Mar-10
03-Aug-10
96
14
0%
0% 11-Mar-10
24-Mar-10
189
A1230
Plastering
10
0%
0% 25-Mar-10
03-Apr-10
217
Plastering
A1210
35
0%
0% 11-Mar-10
14-Apr-10
A1220
15
0%
0% 15-Apr-10
29-Apr-10
37
A1240
35
0%
0% 30-Apr-10
03-Jun-10
37
A1260
0%
0% 17-Jun-10
23-Jun-10
136
A1250
35
0%
0% 20-May-10
23-Jun-10
37
A1270
40
0%
0% 24-Jun-10
03-Aug-10
37
137
0%
25-Mar-10
09-Aug-10
90
14
0%
0% 25-Mar-10
07-Apr-10
189
A1310
Plastering
10
0%
0% 08-Apr-10
17-Apr-10
203
A1340
35
0%
0% 15-Apr-10
19-May-10
A1290
15
0%
0% 20-May-10
03-Jun-10
31
A1360
A1300
0%
0% 04-Jun-10
09-Jul-10
121
15
0%
0% 04-Jul-10
19-Jul-10
111
A1350
45
0%
0% 04-Jun-10
19-Jul-10
31
A1280
25
21
154
0%
0%
0%
0% 24-Jun-10
0% 20-Jul-10
08-Apr-10
19-Jul-10
09-Aug-10
09-Sep-10
31
31
A1320
A1430
A1410
A1440
A1380
A1400
A1450
A1390
A1370
A1420
A1530
A1500
A1490
A1460
A1520
A1510
A1470
59
189
189
0
0
117
0
94
0
0
24
142
220
161
161
142
71
14
10
14
15
35
15
28
35
248
15
21
15
35
115
150
21
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 08-Apr-10
0% 22-Apr-10
0% 20-May-10
0% 03-Jun-10
0% 18-Jun-10
0% 18-Jun-10
0% 22-Jul-10
0% 09-Jul-10
0% 06-Aug-10
08-Feb-10
0% 08-Feb-10*
0% 11-Mar-10
0% 10-Apr-10
0% 25-Apr-10
0% 23-Feb-10
0% 31-Mar-10
0% 10-Sep-10
21-Apr-10
01-May-10
02-Jun-10
17-Jun-10
13-Jul-10
23-Jul-10
05-Aug-10
05-Aug-10
09-Sep-10
14-Oct-10
22-Feb-10
31-Mar-10
24-Apr-10
29-May-10
17-Jun-10
29-Aug-10
30-Sep-10
38
24
229
0
0
0
0
0
241
A1480
35
101
84
29
37
56
20
35
25
21
15
28
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 10-Sep-10
14-Oct-10
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Pouring Concrete
A1060
A1080
A1070
A1150
10-Dec-09 A 22-Mar-10
15-Dec-09 A 10-Mar-10
0% 15-Dec-09 A 14-Jan-10
0% 13-Jan-10
0% 28-Dec-09
0% 19-Feb-10
04-Feb-10
0% 04-Feb-10
0% 08-Feb-10
0% 14-Feb-10
0% 09-Feb-10
19-Feb-10
23-Feb-10
10-Mar-10
11-Mar-10
Steel Works
A1120
01-Mar-10
01-Mar-10
01-Mar-10
01-Mar-10
71
71
251
71
A1130
A1090
A1140
A1110
Cladding of eaves ends in the steel roof (Galvanised sheet, Rock wool, EPDM, waterproofing 15 0% and composite 0% panel) 14-Feb-10
09-Mar-10
149
A1100
35
0%
0% 04-Feb-10
11-Mar-10
71
Infrastructure Works
A1900
101
0%
10-Dec-09
22-Mar-10
229
45
0%
0% 10-Dec-09
25-Jan-10
229
A1880
45
0%
0% 10-Dec-09
25-Jan-10
260
A1890
45
0%
0% 06-Jan-10
19-Feb-10
260
A1910
28
0%
0% 26-Jan-10
22-Feb-10
229
A1920
28
0%
0% 23-Feb-10
22-Mar-10
229
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Summary
Page 2 of 2
85
08-Jan-11 15:03
2010
2011
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
17-Nov-10
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
402
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
122
0%
01-Apr-10
01-Aug-10
108
Excavation works
35
0%
0% 01-Apr-10*
05-May-10
108
A1960
15
0%
0% 06-May-10
20-May-10
138
A1990
21
0%
0% 21-May-10
10-Jun-10
159
A1930
45
0%
0% 06-May-10
19-Jun-10
108
A1970
21
0%
0% 20-Jun-10
11-Jul-10
108
A1940
75
0%
0% 06-May-10
20-Jul-10
114
A1950
21
0%
0% 06-Jul-10
26-Jul-10
114
A1980
21
0%
0% 12-Jul-10
01-Aug-10
108
92
0%
18-Aug-10
17-Nov-10
30
0%
0% 18-Aug-10
16-Sep-10
62
A2020
Provisional Acceptance
0%
0% 20-Oct-10
26-Oct-10
A2010
30
0%
0% 30-Sep-10
29-Oct-10
A2030
21
0%
0% 27-Oct-10
16-Nov-10
A2040
0%
0% 17-Nov-10
17-Nov-10
62
0%
09-Oct-09 A
09-Dec-09 A
100%
100% 09-Oct-09 A
09-Oct-09 A
A1010
100%
100% 26-Oct-09 A
26-Oct-09 A
A1030
21
100%
100% 27-Oct-09 A
17-Nov-09 A
08-Dec-09 A
A1040
A1020
21
21
100%
100%
100% 27-Oct-09 A
A1050
1
210
203
7
45
45
35
35
35
35
45
45
21
45
15
15
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
ELECTRICAL WORKS
Context of Finishing works
A1790
A1670
A1680
A1690
A1730
A1750
A1710
A1770
A1850
A1800
A1810
A1740
A1720
30-Sep-10
30-Sep-10
17-Mar-10
03-May-10
03-May-10
07-Jun-10
07-Jun-10
07-Jun-10
07-Jun-10
17-Jun-10
03-Jul-10
09-Jul-10
23-Aug-10
30-Aug-10
30-Aug-10
48
48
244
74
64
74
74
74
74
64
71
64
64
79
79
79
64
76
73
71
64
0
A1760
A1820
A1840
A1780
A1860
A1830
A1700
A1180
A1170
A1190
15
7
60
21
65
15
11
19
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 16-Aug-10
0% 24-Aug-10
0% 04-Jul-10
0% 16-Aug-10
0% 04-Jul-10
0% 31-Aug-10
0% 20-Sep-10
04-Mar-10
30-Aug-10
30-Aug-10
02-Sep-10
05-Sep-10
07-Sep-10
14-Sep-10
30-Sep-10
22-Mar-10
10-Mar-10
19-Mar-10
22-Mar-10
02-Sep-10
Installation of generators
Installation of fire warning, fire alarm and detection system
Installation of Elevators
Installation of O.G store equipment
Installation of lighting armatures and switches
22-Mar-10, Context of Construction works
Installation of roof heater wire
Electrical conduit piping
Installation of lightning conductor
02-Sep-10, MECHANICAL WORKS
02-Sep-10, Context of Finishing works
239
251
64
239
76
7
15
12
196
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 04-Mar-10
0% 05-Mar-10
0% 11-Mar-10
18-Feb-10
MECHANICAL WORKS
Context of Finishing works
A1540
165
0%
21-Mar-10
02-Sep-10
76
60
0%
0% 21-Mar-10
19-May-10
62
A1550
60
0%
0% 15-Apr-10
13-Jun-10
62
A1560
75
0%
0% 15-May-10
29-Jul-10
90
A1600
45
0%
0% 19-Jun-10
03-Aug-10
62
A1640
21
0%
0% 15-Jul-10
04-Aug-10
96
A1610
0%
0% 04-Aug-10
10-Aug-10
62
A1650
30
0%
0% 15-Jul-10
13-Aug-10
96
A1620
0%
0% 11-Aug-10
17-Aug-10
62
A1630
15
0%
0% 04-Aug-10
18-Aug-10
91
A1570
21
0%
0% 30-Jul-10
19-Aug-10
90
A1580
21
0%
0% 30-Jul-10
19-Aug-10
90
A1590
21
0%
0% 03-Aug-10
23-Aug-10
86
A1660
30
21
0%
0%
0% 04-Aug-10
18-Feb-10
02-Sep-10
10-Mar-10
76
251
Actual Work
Summary
Page 1 of 2
Remaining Work
86
08-Jan-11 15:03
2010 Q2 Installation of flushing system
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
2011
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
A1160
21
10-Mar-10
251
258
0%
08-Feb-10
24-Oct-10
24
145
0%
21-Mar-10
13-Aug-10
96
14
0%
0% 21-Mar-10
03-Apr-10
189
A1230
Plastering
10
0%
0% 04-Apr-10
13-Apr-10
217
Plastering
A1210
35
0%
0% 21-Mar-10
24-Apr-10
A1220
15
0%
0% 25-Apr-10
09-May-10
37
A1240
35
0%
0% 10-May-10
13-Jun-10
37
A1260
0%
0% 27-Jun-10
03-Jul-10
136
A1250
35
0%
0% 30-May-10
03-Jul-10
37
A1270
40
0%
0% 04-Jul-10
13-Aug-10
37
137
0%
04-Apr-10
19-Aug-10
90
14
0%
0% 04-Apr-10
17-Apr-10
189
A1310
Plastering
10
0%
0% 18-Apr-10
27-Apr-10
203
Plastering
A1340
35
0%
0% 25-Apr-10
29-May-10
A1290
15
0%
0% 30-May-10
13-Jun-10
31
A1360
A1300
0%
0% 14-Jun-10
19-Jul-10
121
15
0%
0% 15-Jul-10
29-Jul-10
111
A1350
45
0%
0% 14-Jun-10
29-Jul-10
31
A1280
25
21
154
0%
0%
0%
0% 04-Jul-10
0% 30-Jul-10
18-Apr-10
29-Jul-10
19-Aug-10
19-Sep-10
31
31
A1320
A1430
A1410
A1440
A1380
A1400
A1450
A1390
A1370
A1420
A1530
A1500
A1490
A1460
A1520
A1510
A1470
59
189
189
0
0
117
0
94
0
0
24
152
220
161
161
152
71
14
10
14
15
35
15
28
35
258
15
21
15
35
115
150
21
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 18-Apr-10
0% 02-May-10
0% 30-May-10
0% 13-Jun-10
0% 28-Jun-10
0% 28-Jun-10
0% 01-Aug-10
0% 19-Jul-10
0% 16-Aug-10
08-Feb-10
0% 08-Feb-10*
0% 21-Mar-10
0% 20-Apr-10
0% 05-May-10
0% 23-Feb-10
0% 10-Apr-10
0% 20-Sep-10
01-May-10
11-May-10
12-Jun-10
27-Jun-10
23-Jul-10
02-Aug-10
15-Aug-10
15-Aug-10
19-Sep-10
24-Oct-10
22-Feb-10
10-Apr-10
04-May-10
08-Jun-10
17-Jun-10
07-Sep-10
10-Oct-10
38
24
223
0
0
0
0
0
241
A1480
35
117
94
28
37
56
20
35
0%
0%
0%
77.68%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 20-Sep-10
24-Oct-10
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Pouring Concrete
A1060
A1080
A1070
A1150
10-Dec-09 A 07-Apr-10
15-Dec-09 A 20-Mar-10
35% 15-Dec-09 A 26-Jan-10
0% 13-Jan-10 A
0% 08-Jan-10
0% 01-Mar-10
14-Feb-10
28-Feb-10
04-Mar-10
20-Mar-10
20-Mar-10
Steel Works
A1090
21
15
25
0%
0%
0%
0% 18-Feb-10
0% 24-Feb-10
0% 14-Feb-10
10-Mar-10
10-Mar-10
10-Mar-10
10-Mar-10
251
71
71
71
A1140
A1120
A1130
A1110
Cladding of eaves ends in the steel roof (Galvanised sheet, Rock wool, EPDM, waterproofing 15 0% and composite 0% panel) 24-Feb-10
28
0%
0% 19-Feb-10
18-Mar-10
149
A1100
35
0%
0% 14-Feb-10
20-Mar-10
71
Infrastructure Works
A1900
117
0%
10-Dec-09 A 07-Apr-10
223
45
60%
223
A1880
45
60%
269
A1890
45
4.44%
2% 06-Jan-10 A
21-Feb-10
269
A1910
28
0%
0% 10-Feb-10
10-Mar-10
223
A1920
28
0%
0% 10-Mar-10
07-Apr-10
223
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Summary
Page 2 of 2
87
08-Jan-11 15:19
2010
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
21-Nov-10
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
406
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
122
0%
01-Apr-10
01-Aug-10
112
Excavation works
35
0%
0% 01-Apr-10*
05-May-10
112
A1960
15
0%
0% 06-May-10
20-May-10
142
A1990
21
0%
0% 21-May-10
10-Jun-10
163
A1930
45
0%
0% 06-May-10
19-Jun-10
112
A1970
21
0%
0% 20-Jun-10
11-Jul-10
112
A1940
75
0%
0% 06-May-10
20-Jul-10
118
A1950
21
0%
0% 06-Jul-10
26-Jul-10
118
A1980
21
0%
0% 12-Jul-10
01-Aug-10
112
92
0%
21-Aug-10
21-Nov-10
30
0%
0% 21-Aug-10
20-Sep-10
62
A2020
Provisional Acceptance
0%
0% 23-Oct-10
30-Oct-10
A2010
30
0%
0% 03-Oct-10
02-Nov-10
A2030
21
0%
0% 30-Oct-10
20-Nov-10
A2040
0%
0% 20-Nov-10
21-Nov-10
62
0%
09-Oct-09 A
09-Dec-09 A
100%
100% 09-Oct-09 A
09-Oct-09 A
A1010
100%
100% 26-Oct-09 A
26-Oct-09 A
A1030
21
100%
100% 27-Oct-09 A
17-Nov-09 A
08-Dec-09 A
A1040
A1020
21
21
100%
100%
100% 27-Oct-09 A
A1050
1
203
196
7
45
45
35
35
35
35
45
45
21
15
15
15
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
ELECTRICAL WORKS
Context of Finishing works
A1790
A1670
A1680
A1690
A1730
A1750
A1710
A1770
A1850
A1800
A1720
A1760
A1740
04-Oct-10
04-Oct-10
28-Mar-10
14-May-10
14-May-10
18-Jun-10
18-Jun-10
18-Jun-10
18-Jun-10
28-Jun-10
08-Jul-10
20-Jul-10
03-Sep-10
03-Sep-10
03-Sep-10
48
48
237
67
57
67
67
67
67
57
71
57
79
79
79
57
76
73
57
71
57
0
A1810
A1840
A1780
A1820
A1860
A1830
A1700
A1180
A1170
A1190
45
60
21
7
65
15
11
19
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 21-Jul-10
0% 08-Jul-10
0% 19-Aug-10
0% 04-Sep-10
0% 08-Jul-10
0% 11-Sep-10
0% 23-Sep-10
15-Mar-10
03-Sep-10
06-Sep-10
09-Sep-10
10-Sep-10
11-Sep-10
25-Sep-10
04-Oct-10
02-Apr-10
21-Mar-10
30-Mar-10
02-Apr-10
06-Sep-10
232
244
57
232
76
7
15
12
189
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 15-Mar-10
0% 16-Mar-10
0% 22-Mar-10
01-Mar-10
MECHANICAL WORKS
Context of Finishing works
A1540
165
0%
24-Mar-10
06-Sep-10
76
60
0%
0% 24-Mar-10
23-May-10
62
A1550
60
0%
0% 18-Apr-10
17-Jun-10
62
A1560
75
0%
0% 18-May-10
02-Aug-10
90
A1600
45
0%
0% 22-Jun-10
07-Aug-10
62
A1640
21
0%
0% 18-Jul-10
08-Aug-10
96
A1610
0%
0% 07-Aug-10
14-Aug-10
62
A1650
30
0%
0% 18-Jul-10
17-Aug-10
96
A1620
0%
0% 14-Aug-10
21-Aug-10
62
A1630
15
0%
0% 07-Aug-10
22-Aug-10
91
A1570
21
0%
0% 02-Aug-10
23-Aug-10
90
A1580
21
0%
0% 02-Aug-10
23-Aug-10
90
A1590
21
0%
0% 06-Aug-10
27-Aug-10
86
A1660
30
21
0%
0%
0% 07-Aug-10
01-Mar-10
06-Sep-10
21-Mar-10
76
244
Actual Work
Summary
Page 1 of 2
Remaining Work
88
08-Jan-11 15:19
2010 Q2 Installation of flushing system
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
2011
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
A1160
21
21-Mar-10
244
254
0%
16-Feb-10
28-Oct-10
24
145
0%
24-Mar-10
17-Aug-10
96
14
0%
0% 24-Mar-10
07-Apr-10
189
A1230
Plastering
10
0%
0% 07-Apr-10
17-Apr-10
217
Plastering
A1210
35
0%
0% 24-Mar-10
28-Apr-10
A1220
15
0%
0% 28-Apr-10
13-May-10
37
A1240
35
0%
0% 13-May-10
17-Jun-10
37
A1250
35
0%
0% 02-Jun-10
08-Jul-10
37
A1260
0%
0% 30-Jun-10
08-Jul-10
136
A1270
40
0%
0% 08-Jul-10
17-Aug-10
37
137
0%
07-Apr-10
23-Aug-10
90
14
0%
0% 07-Apr-10
21-Apr-10
189
A1310
Plastering
10
0%
0% 21-Apr-10
01-May-10
203
Plastering
A1340
35
0%
0% 28-Apr-10
02-Jun-10
A1290
15
0%
0% 02-Jun-10
17-Jun-10
31
A1360
A1350
0%
0% 17-Jun-10
23-Jul-10
121
45
0%
0% 17-Jun-10
02-Aug-10
31
A1280
25
0%
0% 08-Jul-10
02-Aug-10
31
A1300
15
21
154
0%
0%
0%
0% 18-Jul-10
0% 02-Aug-10
21-Apr-10
02-Aug-10
23-Aug-10
23-Sep-10
111
31
A1320
A1430
A1410
A1440
A1380
A1400
A1450
A1370
A1390
A1420
A1530
A1500
A1490
A1460
A1520
A1510
A1470
59
189
189
0
0
117
0
0
94
0
24
148
220
161
161
148
64
14
10
14
15
35
28
15
35
254
15
21
15
35
115
150
21
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 21-Apr-10
0% 05-May-10
0% 02-Jun-10
0% 16-Jun-10
0% 01-Jul-10
0% 01-Jul-10
0% 22-Jul-10
0% 04-Aug-10
0% 19-Aug-10
16-Feb-10
0% 16-Feb-10*
0% 24-Mar-10
0% 23-Apr-10
0% 08-May-10
0% 03-Mar-10
0% 21-Apr-10
0% 23-Sep-10
05-May-10
15-May-10
16-Jun-10
01-Jul-10
27-Jul-10
06-Aug-10
19-Aug-10
19-Aug-10
23-Sep-10
28-Oct-10
02-Mar-10
14-Apr-10
08-May-10
12-Jun-10
25-Jun-10
18-Sep-10
14-Oct-10
38
24
205
0
0
0
0
0
234
244
64
64
64
A1480
35
139
97
28
37
56
20
35
0%
0%
0%
100%
91.22%
69.64%
0%
0%
0% 23-Sep-10
28-Oct-10
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Pouring Concrete
A1060
A1080
A1070
A1150
10-Dec-09 A 29-Apr-10
15-Dec-09 A 24-Mar-10
85% 15-Dec-09 A 20-Feb-10
55% 13-Jan-10 A
50% 08-Jan-10 A
25-Feb-10
04-Mar-10
15-Mar-10
31-Mar-10
0% 04-Mar-10 A 24-Mar-10
0% 01-Mar-10
0% 07-Mar-10
0% 25-Feb-10
Steel Works
A1090
A1140
A1120
A1130
A1110
21
15
25
0%
0%
0%
21-Mar-10
21-Mar-10
21-Mar-10
21-Mar-10
Cladding of eaves ends in the steel roof (Galvanised sheet, Rock wool, EPDM, waterproofing 15 0% and composite 0% panel) 07-Mar-10
28
0%
0% 02-Mar-10
29-Mar-10
142
A1100
35
0%
0% 25-Feb-10
31-Mar-10
64
Infrastructure Works
A1880
139
0%
10-Dec-09 A 29-Apr-10
205
45
100%
255
A1890
45
91.11%
50% 06-Jan-10 A
10-Mar-10
255
A1900
45
0%
0% 16-Feb-10
01-Apr-10
205
A1920
28
0%
0% 02-Apr-10
29-Apr-10
205
A1910
28
0%
0% 02-Apr-10
29-Apr-10
205
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Summary
Page 2 of 2
89
08-Jan-11 16:23
2010
Activity Name
Finish
Total Float
2009
Q3
12-Dec-10
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
427
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
147
0%
01-Apr-10 A
26-Aug-10
108
Excavation works
35
85.71%
15% 01-Apr-10 A
30-May-10
108
A1930
45
0%
0% 30-May-10
15-Jul-10
108
A1970
21
0%
0% 15-Jul-10
05-Aug-10
108
A1980
21
0%
0% 05-Aug-10
26-Aug-10
108
A1940
75
0%
0% 30-May-10
14-Aug-10
114
A1950
21
0%
0% 30-Jul-10
20-Aug-10
114
A1960
15
0%
0% 30-May-10
14-Jun-10
138
A1990
21
0%
0% 14-Jun-10
06-Jul-10
159
96
0%
07-Sep-10
12-Dec-10
31
0%
0% 23-Oct-10
23-Nov-10
A2020
Provisional Acceptance
0%
0% 12-Nov-10
19-Nov-10
A2030
22
0%
0% 19-Nov-10
11-Dec-10
A2040
0%
0% 11-Dec-10
12-Dec-10
A2000
30
0%
0% 07-Sep-10
07-Oct-10
66
62
0%
09-Oct-09 A
09-Dec-09 A
100%
100% 09-Oct-09 A
09-Oct-09 A
A1010
100%
100% 26-Oct-09 A
26-Oct-09 A
A1020
Mobilization work
21
100%
A1030
A1040
21
21
100%
100%
100% 27-Oct-09 A
100% 27-Oct-09 A
17-Nov-09 A
08-Dec-09 A
38
38
0
38
38
71
71
71
71
71
71
74
74
80
A1050
1
233
218
11
45
65
45
45
21
45
7
15
21
60
15
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
68.89%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
ELECTRICAL WORKS
Context of Finishing works
A1700
A1850
A1860
A1680
A1770
A1800
A1810
A1820
A1830
A1780
A1840
A1720
24-Oct-10
31-Aug-10
04-Nov-10
06-Jul-10
27-Jul-10
10-Sep-10
17-Sep-10
02-Oct-10
29-Sep-10
29-Sep-10
23-Sep-10
A1740
A1760
A1670
A1690
A1710
A1730
A1750
A1790
A1190
A1180
A1170
15
15
45
35
35
35
35
7
0%
0%
68.89%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 08-Sep-10
0% 08-Sep-10
0% 21-May-10
0% 21-May-10
0% 21-May-10
0% 21-May-10
0% 26-May-10
0% 26-May-10
0% 19-May-10
23-Sep-10
23-Sep-10
25-Jun-10
25-Jun-10
25-Jun-10
25-Jun-10
01-Jun-10
06-Jun-10
25-May-10
80
80
81
81
81
81
81
193
188
188
200
83
12
7
15
206
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
16-Mar-10 A 06-Jun-10
MECHANICAL WORKS
Context of Finishing works
A1540
80
182
0%
24-Mar-10 A 23-Sep-10
80
60
62.25%
66
A1550
60
20.58%
15% 18-Apr-10 A
08-Jul-10
66
A1600
45
0%
0% 10-Jul-10
24-Aug-10
66
A1610
0%
0% 24-Aug-10
31-Aug-10
66
A1620
0%
0% 31-Aug-10
07-Sep-10
66
A1660
30
0%
0% 24-Aug-10
23-Sep-10
80
A1590
21
0%
0% 26-Aug-10
16-Sep-10
87
A1560
75
0%
0% 04-Jun-10
19-Aug-10
94
A1570
21
0%
0% 19-Aug-10
09-Sep-10
94
A1580
21
0%
0% 19-Aug-10
09-Sep-10
94
A1630
15
0%
0% 24-Aug-10
08-Sep-10
95
A1640
A1650
21
30
21
0%
0%
0%
0% 04-Aug-10
0% 04-Aug-10
25-Aug-10
03-Sep-10
100
100
01-Mar-10 A 21-Mar-10 A
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Summary
Page 1 of 2
90
08-Jan-11 16:23
2010
Activity Name
Total Float
2009
Q3
2011
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
A1160
21
242
0%
24-Mar-10 A 22-Nov-10
20
168
0%
24-Mar-10 A 09-Sep-10
94
35
100%
A1220
15
0%
0% 21-May-10
05-Jun-10
34
A1240
35
0%
0% 05-Jun-10
11-Jul-10
34
A1250
35
0%
0% 25-Jun-10
31-Jul-10
34
A1270
40
0%
0% 31-Jul-10
09-Sep-10
34
A1260
0%
0% 24-Jul-10
31-Jul-10
134
A1200
14
100%
190
A1230
Plastering
10
100%
50% 07-Apr-10 A
24-May-10
201
Plastering
160
0%
07-Apr-10 A
15-Sep-10
88
35
0%
0% 21-May-10
25-Jun-10
A1290
15
0%
0% 25-Jun-10
11-Jul-10
28
A1350
45
0%
0% 11-Jul-10
25-Aug-10
28
A1280
25
0%
0% 31-Jul-10
25-Aug-10
28
A1320
21
0%
0% 25-Aug-10
15-Sep-10
28
A1300
15
0%
0% 10-Aug-10
25-Aug-10
109
A1360
0%
0% 11-Jul-10
15-Aug-10
20-May-10
24-May-10
119
190
201
A1330
A1310
A1440
A1380
A1450
A1370
A1420
A1390
A1400
A1430
A1410
A1510
A1480
A1470
A1520
A1530
A1460
14
10
184
100%
93.5%
0%
90% 07-Apr-10 A
65% 21-Apr-10 A
12-Apr-10 A
13-Oct-10
07-Jul-10
22-Jul-10
26-Aug-10
08-Sep-10
13-Oct-10
08-Sep-10
16-Aug-10
27-May-10
04-Jun-10
22-Nov-10
17-Nov-10
03-Nov-10
08-Sep-10
15-May-10
60
0
0
0
0
0
95
118
190
190
20
20
25
39
95
95
14
15
35
28
35
15
14
10
242
150
35
21
115
15
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
66.79%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20% 12-Apr-10 A
0% 07-Jul-10
0% 22-Jul-10
0% 11-Aug-10
0% 08-Sep-10
0% 24-Aug-10
0% 22-Jul-10
55% 21-Apr-10 A
15% 18-Apr-10 A
0% 25-Jun-10
0% 13-Oct-10
0% 13-Oct-10
0% 16-May-10
0% 01-May-10*
24-Mar-10 A 22-Nov-10
35
15
21
173
97
20
28
56
37
98
35
25
0%
49%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
0%
0% 26-Jun-10
35% 23-Apr-10 A
01-Aug-10
26-Jun-10
133
133
192
0
0
A1490
A1500
CONSTRUCTION WORKS
Pouring Concrete
A1150
A1060
A1070
A1080
Cladding concrete
Basement Floor (Insulation, lean concrete and reinforced concrete works)
Ground Floor
First Floor
Installation of U and L steel sections in the roof
Roof cladding (Trapeze, rock wool, EPDM, etc.)
Installation of aluminum plates
23-Mar-10 A
20-Apr-10 A
Steel Works
A1100
A1120
A1130
A1140
25-Feb-10 A 02-Jun-10
50% 25-Feb-10 A 18-May-10
0% 01-May-10
25-May-10
25-May-10
192
20
20
20
Cladding of eaves ends in the steel roof (Galvanised sheet, Rock wool, EPDM, waterproofing 15 0% and composite 0% panel) 11-May-10
15
0%
0% 11-May-10
25-May-10
20
A1110
28
0%
0% 06-May-10
02-Jun-10
97
A1090
21
100%
Infrastructure Works
A1900
139
0%
10-Dec-09 A 13-May-10
212
45
100%
212
A1910
28
100%
80% 02-Apr-10 A
13-May-10
212
A1920
28
100%
80% 02-Apr-10 A
13-May-10
212
A1880
45
100%
220
A1890
45
100%
90% 06-Jan-10 A
05-May-10
220
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Summary
Page 2 of 2
91