2007 AACE International Transactions
CDR.04
The Great Debate—TIA vs WINDOWS
A Better Path for Retrospective Delay Analysis?
Bruce Evans Hallock, PSP CFCC and Pradip M. Mehta
“…we have to fight this battle upon principle alone…So I hope
those whom I am surrounded have principle enough to nerve
themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can be
fairly done to bring about the right result.”
(A. Lincoln, 1858)
oday’s construction industry is in great disarray [1].
T As a matter of course, capital projects are increasing-
ly arenas of conflict over intractable problems,
extended time of performance resulting in significant
losses. Simple bad fortune is not the root cause, rather the prob-
lems often stem from an inability to identify and resolve com-
plex performance issues through a contemporaneous process,
before the dispute blossoms into costly litigation.
Understanding and explaining performance issues is a signifi-
cant obstacle to resolution and has increasingly led the parties
to this arena. One of the most contentious of issues is schedule
and delay and “the principal dimension measured by schedules
is delay [2].” Over the past 20 years the number and complex-
ity of delay claims has escalated exponentially. However, amid
the variety of delay analysis methodologies, which in turn can
lead to different results, it becomes more difficult to resolve dis-
putes early and presents more challenges for the trier of fact. In
addition, the “blending” of methodologies and/or the misuse of
methodologies has further led to the difficulties in resolving the
issue of delay.
While a standard methodology does not exist for tracking
schedule progress and analyzing delays, we should all be
encouraged by the debate within the industry and the efforts to
develop best practices [3]. The question still remains; is there
a correct way to perform delay analyses? Or, if we are reluctant
to identify a “correct” way, is one method, better than another
and more likely to provide a more accurate depiction of the
delay? For the past two decades we have seen the tide ebb and
flow over several methodologies and for a few, while they have
not yet been put to rest, the courts have tolled their death knell.
Debate has “swirled” for many years around the effectiveness
of two of the more prominent tools for retrospective delay analy-
ses, time impact analysis (TIA), sometimes referred to as time
impact evaluation (TIE), and Window Analysis. At last an
opportunity has arisen which permits a comparison of the two
methods. This opportunity saw the application of both methods
on the same project, to analyze the project delays. On the one
CDR.04.1
side the contractor used a modified TIE to justify his position,
while on the other, the owner adopted Window Analysis to
rebut the contractor’s claims, determine entitlement, causation,
excusable and compensable time. These analyses were not
done in isolation, but were prepared cooperatively. This level
of cooperation permitted each party to have full visibility to the
respective analytical processes, and encouraged an ongoing dia-
logue as they progressed. More than just a tool to analyze the
project delays; the Window Analysis provided the ability to
accurately calculate all time related compensation.
In the taxonomy of delay analyses the term “window analysis”
is often misused to describe any delay analysis that is based on
an examination of a series of project time periods. The same is
equally true for time impact analysis. For example it is com-
mon to read that “window analysis, [is] a variation of time
impact analysis… [4]” D. Arditi and T. Pattanakitchamroon
cite the views of researchers and practitioners in 20 articles pub-
lished between 1987 and 2004 on the relative advantages of
four of the more common delay analysis methods. Their analy-
sis lumps comments regarding window analysis under the head-
ing time impact method regardless of the terminology in the ref-
erenced article [5]. When one reads deeper, the time periods
in the time impact analysis are often simply referred to as “win-
dows.” In fact the time periods in nearly all delay analysis are
often referred to as ‘windows’ and thus the confusion begins. In
the same vein time impact evaluation and time impact analysis
are used interchangeably. Beginning in the early 1960s, time
impact evaluation was the name given to the method for updat-
ing CPM schedules to reflect actual performance and delays,
later the name evolved into time impact analysis [6]. Today
many US federal, state and local government contracts use both
the names time impact analysis or time impact evaluation to
define a similar process for supporting time requests for changes
or delays.
In 2006, the Phoenix Light Rail project contract specification
requirements for determining prospective views regarding time
extensions for change orders used the terminology “TIE” along
with steps which are very similar to the TIA requirements on
other public contracts.
 2007 AACE International Transactions
Time Impact Evaluation (TIE) for Change Orders and each, including the potential confusion between TIA and TIE;
Other Delays and finally our case study will focus the analysis on the head-to-
head confrontation of the two methods, and attempt to answer
• When the contractor is directed to proceed with changed the question; is there a better way?
work, or issued a change notice, the contractor shall pre-
pare and submit, within 14-calendar days of notification, a WINDOW ANALYSIS VS. TIE, METHODS
time impact evaluation (TIE) that includes both a written FOR ANALYZING PROJECT DELAY
narrative and a schedule diagram (fragnet) depicting how
the changed work affects the other schedule activities. The While various organizations use either or both window analy-
fragnet shall show how the contractor proposes to incorpo- sis and TIE, the literature presented herein focuses on the win-
rate the changed work in the schedule.” dow analysis method as has been described in various published
• The TIE shall be based on the latest accepted project papers and research regarding delay analysis and as employed by
schedule update.” The Nielsen-Wurster Group, Inc. (Nielsen-Wurster), as well as
• If applicable, the contractor shall demonstrate how the other companies analyzing delay. Recognizing that TIA and
changed work impacts the current schedule update critical TIE are often used interchangeably and that there is more than
path. The contractor is also responsible for requesting time one delay analysis method know as TIE, this paper is examining
extensions based on the TIE's impact on the critical path.” the modified TIE method the contractor used for the case study
• If the changed work impacts the critical path and a contract being evaluated herein as described in the book titled, CPM in
milestone, of the last accepted project schedule, the con- Construction Management [10].
tractor shall submit, along with the TIE, a mitigation plan,
including a schedule diagram (fragnet) which explains how Window Analysis [11]
the impact can be mitigated, and contract milestone date The window analysis approach was first developed by
recovered. The contractor shall also include a detailed cost Nielsen-Wurster and employed in the litigations in U.S. District
breakdown of the labor, equipment and material, the con- court involving the King Dome Stadium in Seattle,
tractor would expend to mitigate the agency caused time Washington. The court, in its opinion, indicated that the win-
impact.” dow analysis provided the clearest understanding of the prob-
lems and delays and was a foundation for its decision in favor of
In spite of the efforts of AACE International and others, our the owner for whom it was prepared. Since that opinion, win-
industry has not able to agree upon a universally accepted stan- dow analysis has been employed and accepted in US federal,
dard terminology for delay analysis methods. This dearth of state, and agency tribunals, arbitrations and utility commission
cohesion has created great confusion among schedulers, con- proceedings for resolving acceleration/delay disputes [12].
sultants, lawyers, and owners when trying to communicate Window analysis divides a project into specific time periods
about various analytical methods. As noted above most of the lit- (that is windows of time), which are defined by changes to the
erature makes no distinction between TIA/TIE and window project critical path or major events as defined in the contem-
analysis. Both are considered “contemporaneous period analy- poraneous project schedules and project documentation.
ses [7].” However, it was observed that if a delay analysis is Window analysis uses the actual project schedules developed
prospective in nature, most authors tend to refer that type of and submitted to the owner (employer). Delay is determined
analysis as TIA and if a delay analysis is performed on a retro- based on actual project documentation. Assumptions which
spective basis, it was referred as window analysis. employ subjectivity, as to “what should have happened,” are not
A review of the current literature reveals six different delay made. Each window starts with a contemporaneous plan for the
analysis methods that have been referred to as synonymous with future work and ends when the plan is revised and/or the criti-
window analysis. They include the following [8]. cal path changes between schedule revisions. The “window in
time” is defined by the calendar period between the schedules
• time impact analysis (TIA); being used to present the work planned between the schedule
• snapshot technique; changes. By using each schedule update for the period until a
• record schedule approach; new critical path or major event arises, the analysis always looks
• adjusted as-planned; at the then critical path. This is extremely important as delays to
• modified as-built; and the critical path activities determine the delays to the project
• contemporaneous period analysis. completion date. Through the use of current schedules the real-
ity of the project and information known to the parties at the
While XeroxTM may have fallen into the lexicon of our lan- time delays were occurring is analyzed and the method used by
guage as the generic term for “photocopies,” in the post Daubert the contractor and owner in managing those delays is addressed.
world of delay analysis, we are not afforded the luxury of gener- Furthermore, the use of contemporaneous project informa-
alization. We must clearly define the methodology used to per- tion ensures that the analysis addresses delays to activities that
form the analysis and stand ready to defend it.9 were critical as they occurred. In recent years, courts and
This paper will define the analytical steps of the window arbiters have held that contract extensions should be based
analysis and the time impact evaluation (TIE) as modified in its upon current schedules for the time period in question, not
use on a particular project; compare and contrast each method; schedules created later with the benefit of hindsight. A contem-
provide a summary review of the current literature discussing poraneous evaluation of delays requires the analysis to begin

CDR.04.2
 2007 AACE International Transactions
with the project start date (or other key early date) and stop at Step 3: Critical Path Determination
periodic intervals during the project, such as when the baseline The initial window is defined by the period between the ini-
is revised or when the critical path shifts. Such an analysis best tial CPM schedule and the first update. For the first window, list
reflects the parties’ knowledge at the time the delays occurred. the activities from the initial CPM schedule that are on the crit-
There have been cases where the “as-built” analyses have been ical or near critical path and are planned to be started and/or
rejected because variances between the as–built schedule and completed in the first window period. Since project delay only
updates of the project schedule cannot be explained adequate- results from those delays on the critical path or near critical path
ly. Another benefit of Window analysis is that the critical path (after consuming relatively minor float), it is only necessary to
is evaluated in separate, distinct time periods. evaluate the critical path and near critical path activities. Care
In summary, Window analysis minimizes information gaps by must be given not to include “sub paths” which could result in
using contemporaneous project documents, including project double-counting delay.
schedule and updates, to identify critical activities and time The analyst should look at each update’s critical path to deter-
periods, as well as to measure the impact of delays. Schedules mine if there have been any major logic changes (re: sequenc-
on complex construction projects can contain thousands of ing) in addition to duration changes. Identification of changes
activities and appear overwhelming when reviewed in their will help guide the analyst to the work around the contractor has
entirety. Window analysis creates a mechanism whereby these employed and may assist in discovering whether or not the con-
schedules and their updates can be reviewed in a manageable tractor actually accelerated its work on the project. Review may
and ultimately more useful manner. result in sub-windows and/or other analytical work relative to
Analyzing project delays using Window analysis employs the the specific project facts.
following seven steps.
Step 4: Actual Dates
Step Description Using the list developed in Step 3, locate actual start and fin-
• initial and updated schedule analysis; ish dates of only these activities. All update dates should be ver-
• window time frame determination; ified against daily reports, diaries, or other contemporaneous
• critical path determination; project data to determine their accuracy and completeness. If
• actual dates documentation; the dates are consistent, proceed to step 5. If the dates are incon-
• window delay calculations; sistent, additional documentation must be analyzed to deter-
• repeat of steps 3-for all remaining windows; and mine the actual dates.
• total project delay calculations
Step 5: Window Delay Calculation
Step 1: Initial and Updated Schedules The window delay calculation recognizes four distinct types
Locate the original CPM schedule and all updates associated of impact to activities: start gains or delays and production gains
with the project. Prepare a listing of the dates of issue of the orig- or delays. The definition of each of these impacts and sign con-
inal schedule and each schedule update. vention is:
Window analysis employs the actual CPM data from the proj-
ect, therefore the initial schedule must be validated to ascertain • Start Gain (SG): The number of working days an activity
that the network logic and activity durations are reasonable, i.e., has started prior to its logically planned start.
achievable while recognizing there are different means and • Start Delay (SD): The number of working days an activity
methods. Similarly, an audit sample of contemporaneous data has actually started after its planned start (this is contingent
over the actual performance period will provide evidence of the upon the schedule logic as other activities’ actual starts or
general reliability of actual information recorded in the updates. completions may alter this direct comparison). If an activi-
Once the CPM updates are identified and validated, prepare ty has already started prior to the start of the window being
a summary of the data. The summary data should include the analyzed, then there can be no start delay in the window. If
CPM date, number, data date, completion date, and total float. an activity is scheduled to start in the window and contin-
Tracking total float will alert the analyzer to constraints or ues through the end of the window into the next window,
changes to the project completion date. and has no start in this window, the delay is calculated only
from the scheduled start to the end of the window. Further,
Step 2: Window Time Frames delay may be calculated in the following window, if the
Determine the time periods, or “windows” to be analyzed. activity is still on the critical path. If it is not critical in the
The window period is defined by the calendar period between next window, the balance of the start delay is immaterial, as
major changes to the schedule critical path, major project it did not further delay project completion.
events, or contract changes. It is not necessary that the periods • Production Gain (PG): The number of work days for an
of time between updates be consistent, as the window is intend- activity from start through completion (the duration),
ed to reflect a period in project performance time which corre- which is less than the scheduled number of work days. In
sponds with contemporaneous project CPM records. In cases of other words, the actual duration is less than the planned
multiple year projects, if the critical path has not shifted, it duration for the window being analyzed.
would be reasonable to combine the updates to reduce the iter- • Production Delay (PD): The number of work days an
ations required. activity an activity takes from start through completion, in
excess of the number of days allowed in the schedule. In

CDR.04.3
 2007 AACE International Transactions
other words, the actual duration is greater than the planned Advantages and Disadvantages of Window Analysis
duration. Production delays are limited to, and are contin- Much has been written about the strengths and limitations of
gent upon, only those portions of the planned and actual the window analysis method, some are based on sound research,
durations which are within the window. Like start delay, while others appear to be the author’s presumptive bias, or a rep-
production delay is contingent upon schedule logic as etition of the comments of others. The major strengths or
other activities’ actual starts or completions may alter a advantages of the window analysis are the following [14].
direct comparison with the plan when logic other than fin-
ish-to-start logic is used. • It divides the project into manageable time periods, and
therefore reflects the impacts on a periodic basis.
In analyzing each of the four impact scenarios, a review of the • It acknowledges the dynamic nature of CPM schedules and
logic connections between the activities is required prior to thus accounts for changing critical paths through the life of
making assessments. Direct comparison of the planned versus the project.
actual dates will yield an incorrect calculation [13]. A primary • It identifies critical delays in chronological order thus sup-
rule when analyzing concurrent critical paths of activities is that porting the evaluation of cumulative impacts on subse-
only one day of delay can be lost on a given calendar day and quent time periods.
only one day of gain can be incurred on a given calendar day. • It accurately quantities and shows when delays and gains,
Delays and gains can cancel one another. Delays and/or gains which impact the project completion date, occurred.
for each activity must be plotted on a time line to ensure that • It demonstrates the contractors mitigation through acceler-
concurrency of activities is considered and no more than one ation or revised logic.
day of delay is calculated for any one calendar day. At the ends • It demonstrates concurrent delay.
of each window, the net delay or gain to the project completion • It recognizes the concept of float as a resource and there-
date is determined by adding the delay/or gain on the control- fore facilitates the distinct delays form apparent delays.
ling critical path. As contract delay is typically referred to in cal- • It fairly allocates delays among the project participants, and
endar days, it is important to assure that the delay quantified in defines excusability and compensability.
the window analysis is converted to calendar days. One of the • It considers resource allocation as the cause of a production
primary reasons that delay is usually calculated in work days gain or delay. And,
during the window analysis is that the schedule may be based on • It provides a clear and compelling presentation before the
more than one calendar (i.e., some activities may be on a 5-day court, arbitration panel, or hearing board.
work week while others may be on a 6-day or 7-day work week.
Multiple calendars for different activities on a critical path are Criticisms on the limitations of the window analysis are less
not unusual). While this is the general guideline, specific proj- numerous, and in most instances are limitations in project doc-
ect facts may determine whether delay is calculated in work umentation and not a limitation on the window analysis
days or calendar day. Whichever is selected, consistency must method itself. The limitations imposed by shortcomings in the
be applied throughout the analysis. contemporaneous project record will impact any delay analysis
technique, and depending on how serious, may dictate the
Step 6: Repeat Steps 3-5 For All Remaining Windows choice of one method over another.
Once the delay has been calculated and identified for window
no. 1, the analyst determines the activities to be analyzed for • Requires accurate and detailed contemporaneous project
windows no. 2. The window no. 2 time period was previously documentation. This is true no matter what technique is
determined in step 2. The first update, marking the beginning going to be used. Very few projects have complete and fully
time point for window no. 2 is the source for identifying the crit- detailed contemporaneous documentation. The skill and
ical activities to be analyzed in window no. 2. List the critical ability of the analyst are tested in these instances to provide
and near critical activities from the first update which are sched- experience and judgment, tempered with a dose of com-
uled to be started and/or completed during the window no. 2 mon sense.
time period only, then proceed through steps 4-5. • Systematic schedule updates are required for the analysis to
be valid. This is certainly the preferred condition, and is
Step 7: Total Project Delay Calculation equally true for all analytical techniques. However in the
To calculate the delay for the entire project, sum the net absence of systematic updates, if accurate contemporane-
delays and gains calculated for each of the windows. This delay ous records are available, a missing updated schedule can,
equals the delay actually incurred on the project and is the dif- with care, be re-constructed.
ference between the contractual completion as set forth in the • Manipulation of outcomes is possible with every technique,
originally planned CPM schedule, plus executed extensions in and the suggestion that the selection of arbitrary windows
project completion date, and the actual completion date. This can affect the outcome ignores the methodology which is
latter total delay serves as a check to ensure the delays have been applied to select the windows.
accurately identified and calculated in the time periods during • Expensive and time consuming; this may not be fully accu-
the course of the project. rate and to date no comparative cost data has been provid-
ed to support this argument.
• Shunned by lawyers because of its data intensive nature;
this may not be completely accurate and may be an

CDR.04.4
 2007 AACE International Transactions
assumption based on the presumed expense and time to records. This process will correct for any erroneous data, that
produce a thorough analysis. all too often, get entered into the regular schedule updates.
• Window analysis has no mechanism for representing and When the as-built schedule is completed the as-planned and as-
analyzing acceleration. Quite the contrary, the window built schedules can be plotted on a side-by-side basis rough
analysis method directly measures production delays, as comparison. This review may reveal areas in the schedule
well as gains. The analysis of the records will indicate if this where further research and adjustments are required.
is acceleration through overtime or increased staffing, or
some other accelerating technique such as off-site pre- Step 3: Prepare the As-Built Logic Diagram
assembly. The reality of scheduling is that activities will be performed
out of sequence therefore the preparation of the as-built logic
Time Impact Evaluation (TIE) diagram will explain why the activities were performed in the
The definition and procedure for performing one version of order that they were. It may be a practical impossibility to per-
the TIE method which was employed in this case study is set form this task for all activities in the as-built schedule, but it
forth in the sixth edition of James O’Brien and Fredric Plotnick’s should be performed for all known events that may impact a net-
CPM in Construction Management [36]. The TIE method work activity. This portion of the evaluation is focusing on the
defined in O’Brien and Plotnick differs with the more tradition- “why” and not assigning responsibility or fault. Preparation of
al time impact analysis method outlined by Jon Wickwire (et the as-built logic diagram may require the addition of “added”
al.) in Construction Scheduling: Preparation, Liability, and activities between an event and the network. The rational
Claims [52]. The more traditional TIA/TIE is primarily used behind deviations from plan may range from the simple and
during the project for calculation of project delay relative to obvious to the complex, and are often not part of the contempo-
change order impacts, thus representing a prospective method- raneous project records. Preparation of the as-built logic
ology based on the contemporaneous schedule updates. “…usually will involve a large degree of conjecture and subjec-
However, other TIA methodologies, such as those suggested by tivity… [21].”
Stu Ockman and John Livengood, have specifically been
applied to retrospective analyses [19]. In either case, both the Step 4: Identify All Causative Factors
traditional TIA prospective analysis and the retrospective Prepare a table of all known events that may have impacted a
TIA/TIE analyses exclude a number of the features in the schedule activity. These events should be self evident and
O’Brien and Plotnick modified TIE method. include such factors as: change orders, potential change orders,
The retrospective delays analysis using the O’Brien and force majeure delays, RFIs, shop drawing rejections, stop work
Plotnick modified TIE method involves the following eight step orders and the contractor’s own “dirty laundry.” The analyst
process. should avoid assigning any responsibility or fault to the factors at
this time. Causative factors should be evaluated in terms of the
StepDescription specific impacts they may have on the progress of the work. It
• prepare the as-planned logic; is further suggested that each category of delay should be sepa-
• prepare the as-built schedule; rately identified, such as “force majeure” and the like. This
• prepare the as-built logic diagram; should be done in the following three ways:
• identify all causative factors;
• apply all causative factors to the as-planned schedule; • determine at what point in the project the factor impacted
• prepare a TIE for each causative factor; the schedule;
• zeroing-out analysis; and • determine what activity in the schedule was impacted; and,
• perform TIE analysis for each time period. • identify and document the reason or cause for the event.

Step 1—Prepare the As-Planned Logic Step 5: Apply all Causative Factors to the As-Planned
Here
The first step in the evaluation is to obtain and validate the as- Schedule
planned logic network. This is usually, but may not always be, Once all of the causative factors have been identified they are
the submitted and approved baseline schedule. The analyst added to a separate copy of the as-planned logic network. The
should validate the as-planned logic network and confirm that is activities are added to the schedule based on the date when the
based upon the contractor’s thinking prior to the NTP, and does impact occurred and the activity impacted. Where it is known
not include information that was only available after the NTP. that an event occurred on a specific date, it should be entered
The as-planned logic network, if submitted and approved after with a start no earlier than constraint. Care must be taken to
the NTP, may need to be adjusted to correct any post NTP insure that the rules of network development are rigorously
influences that could affect the delay analysis [20]. maintained. The analyst should document this step carefully to
avoid any suggestion of manipulation. This is the most difficult
Step 2—Prepare the As-Built Schedule step of this process
Once the as-planned network has been identified it is copied
and renamed the “as-built schedule.” The as-built project dates Step 6: Prepare a TIE for Each Causative Factor
are then inserted into the renamed as-planned network. These Prepare a TIE for each factor from the time impact developed
dates are based on the contemporaneous schedule updates, in step 4. When all the causation factors have been applied, if
progress reports, daily reports, and any other available project each step was done correctly, the resulting as-impacted

CDR.04.5
 2007 AACE International Transactions
schedule will approximate the as-built schedule. Once the ana- Advantages and Disadvantages of TIE
lyst has determined the entire TIE information has been cor- Each delay analysis technique has its strengths and weakness-
rectly inserted into the as-planned schedule a standard CPM es, and depending on the project circumstances, such as avail-
calculation is performed. The resulting calculation should cor- able documentation and schedule updates, one may be favored
relate closely with the as-built schedule. The analyst then com- over another. TIE can be an effective tool for analyzing delay,
pares as-impacted schedule to the as-built schedule. All major and while it has its supporters it is not without its critics.
discrepancies noted and evaluated to determine if the TIEs were Consider the following points.
correctly applied, and if the durations are accurate. The analyst
needs to revisit the causative factors list to determine if any have • To quantify damages for extended general conditions, TIE
been omitted. is typically not accurate for extended delay quantification
and more accurate quantification which can be directly
Step 7: Zeroing-out Analysis compared with the true project delay requires the applica-
The “zeroing-out” process is a three step exercise to determine tion of a methodology such as window analysis.
the contribution of each category of causative factor to the proj- • If the as-planned logic network is invalid the analyst may be
ect delay. The three categories of causation follow the three required to make a number of “corrections.” While this is
causes of delay; force majeure (third party), contractor caused; possible and the courts have recognized this may be need-
and owner caused delay. The durations of each category of ed from time to time, it opens the question to manipulation
causative factor are set at zero and the impacted schedule is [24].
recalculated. The result of each iteration is recorded and based • Identifying all causative factors, may be quite time consum-
on the results of these calculations the effect of concurrency can ing, and then when the analysis is complete, one may not
be determined in a simple mathematical formula to solve for the be certain they have them all. There could be a series of
fourth unknown. causative factors which may not impact excusability but
would bring into question compensability. The analyst is
“If there are only a few causative factors impacting the as also open to challenge for selecting only those causative
planned logic network, it is suggested that the TIEs be selec- events which will bias the outcome.
tively zeroed out by category. For instance, the Force Majeure • TIE requires the creation of fragnets to mimic the delaying
changes are zeroed out and a run is made to determine the event. In the modified TIE as outlined in CPM in
overall impact of their absence on the network. Similarly, Construction Management, the causative events are pro-
contractor related TIEs are zeroed out, and whatever further gressively zeroed out. Again this is highly subjective, and
improvement their absence makes in the schedule is noted. begs the question of manipulation. In a prospective analy-
Then, the owner-related TIEs, involving changes and any sis inserted anticipated delay is justified. In retrospective
hold orders, and so on, are zeroed out, and the final result analysis the delay duration is already defined, causation,
should bring network back to its as-planned status. effect, and entitlement need to be determined.
“Since each category of change is zeroed out step-by-step, the • TIE is also considered to be costly requiring significant
effects of concurrency can be observed from the results of the time and effort.
three separate runs.” • While it calculates the most likely impact of force majeure
and employer caused delays, it does not fully account for
Upon completion of each impact analysis, an accurately writ- contractor’s caused delays.
ten description of the facts and circumstances associated with a • The Society of Construction Law reduced its emphasis on
change or delay should be prepared. the use of the time impact analysis technique, recognizing
that it will not always be suitable or even possible in some
Step 8: Choose Appropriate Time Periods circumstances [25].”
The contractor’s TIE for the case study further differed from • Useful for prospective analysis, but minimal utility for sup-
modified TIE that is outlined in CPM in Construction porting claims [26].
Management. In the case study, the contractor identified 22
windows or dates between selected causative events which he Difference Between Window Analysis and TIE
used in the zeroing-out exercise. In CPM in Construction Traditional TIA/TIE and window analysis rely on contempo-
Management the process begins with the last activity (project raneous schedules to demonstrate the impact of a delay to the
completion) and working backwards tracing the driving rela- project’s critical path [27]. The modified TIE used in this paper
tionships either to a causative factor or the start of the network; as the example, was based on a fragnet, impacted as-planned
this path is the critical path of the TIE. (Note: there is often logic network, and an as-built constructed from the original as-
more than one.) Next delete all successors to the one or more planned logic network, and not the contractor’s contemporane-
causative factors determined to be the “root” of the critical path. ous schedules. Window analysis is beneficial in “looking back”
Reschedule and trace the network back to the next causative and determining exactly what occurred and when at the time
event. Repeat this process through all subsequent causative decisions were made. Assumptions are taken out of the process
events until reaching the start of the network and the actual delays are highlighted. Window analysis cap-
tures the dynamic nature of the project’s critical path, the
responsibility for delays, and concurrent delays.

CDR.04.6
 2007 AACE International Transactions
In contrast with the TIA or the modified TIE, window analy- • railroad imposed design changes;
sis does not require the preparation of fragnets [28]. Window • railroad lack of resources;
analysis progressively analyzes the planned activity start and end • delays and inconsistency in decision making;
dates with the actual dates for specific periods (windows) of • biological – endangered species testing and relocation;
time. Thus, the window analysis criterion is based on contem- • multiple railroad changes in work rules impacting direct
poraneous project documentation and, thereby, avoids assump- costs and loss of productivity;
tions and subjectivity as to “what should or might have hap- • owner directed changes;
pened.” One of the biggest advantages of the windows analysis • differing site conditions;
method is that, by using the then current schedule for each peri- • constructive acceleration; and
od until a new situation arises (that changes the base logic and • limited curfew approvals impacting live track work.
the identified critical activities), the analysis is always looking at
“the then critical work” and therefore captures the true project A significant benefit from the use of the window analysis was
dynamics. in the calculation of damages. The contractor was able to pro-
vide the owner with actual general conditions expenses for any
THE CASE STUDY: time period on the project, based on the windows analysis it was
WINDOW ANALYSIS vs. MODIFIED TIE possible to link cost with the compensable delay periods. The
window analysis also defined the periods for allocation of direct
Project Overview damages which was important in determining the cost of capi-
The case study is drawn from a recently completed transporta- tal.
tion project for a Regional Transportation Authority in the US
[29]. The project delivery method was a design/build contract. The Case Study Window Analysis
The RFP was issued in October 2000, bids were received in July The window analysis divided the project into 12 windows, and
2001, an award was made in August 2001 and notice to proceed as a result of the analysis it was determined that 376 days were
(NTP) issued on January 2002. The original contract duration excusable, of which 311 were compensable, and 65 days excus-
was 1,159 days with a planned completion on March 2005. able only. Nielsen-Wurster’s schedule delay quantification was
The project consisted of the design and construction of based upon the analysis of key schedules selected from the elec-
approximately 45 miles of a second mainline track along an tronic schedules created and used by the contractor on this proj-
existing 72-mile corridor which is owned by the state and main- ect. The analysis identified appropriate project time windows
tained and operated under an agreement with CSXT [30]. during which the delay was quantified and analyzed through a
Other improvements included the following. review of the logic of the project schedule updates and contem-
poraneous project records. This paper will summarize the
• upgrades to existing track; analyses of window nos. 1-7 and 11 only. The reader will note
• upgrades to a northern maintenance and layover facility; that there was no change in logic between windows one and
• construction and rehabilitation of bridges over 12 canal two, or between windows three and four. While this would
crossings; appear to technically “violate” the methodology used to define
• renovation of nine existing stations; the window periods described earlier in this paper in the win-
• construction of one new station and closing/demolition of dow analysis section. However, in this case it was necessary.
an existing station; Because of the late approval of the baseline schedule, the first
• upgrades to passenger information systems; and, update was not prepared until September 2002, eight months
• installation of automated grade-crossing warning devices at after NTP. Relying on contemporaneous project records, and
all crossings, providing full closure along the entire 72-mile validated against subsequent schedule updates Nielsen-Wurster
corridor. prepared monthly updates for the first eight months of project.
These updates were used to identify the critical path during this
The owner issued 166 change orders totaling $84.2M increas- period, and changes to the critical path as and when they
ing the original contract amount of $231.6M to $315.8M. occurred.
Three change orders revised the contract extending the contract The window analysis only quantifies gains and delays, the
duration 184 calendar days while a fourth reduced the contract analyst must still review the project documentation to deter-
period 69 days. Compensability for the time extensions was not mine the findings and conclusions regarding responsibility, enti-
addressed in any of the change orders. The contractor reserved tlement, compensability and concurrency. This analysis has to
its rights to compensability for all time extensions and disputed be done regardless of the methodology employed to quantify
the 69 days that were deleted from the contract period. delay. Each of the figures reference in the window discussions
During the project the contractor submitted over 35 change summarize the both the quantification of the gains and delays,
requests for additional compensation and time. These changes and the results of the analysis which determined responsibility,
requests went unresolved and constituted the contractor’s claim compensability and concurrency which are carried forward and
which was deferred to the end of the project for resolution. The summarized in figure 7.
more significant of these issues were the following.
Window No. 1 (16 Jan 02 – 28 Feb 02)
• erroneous survey data; There were two critical paths in window no. 1, the first
• defective documents; through the vertical and geodetic surveys and track design sur-

CDR.04.7
 2007 AACE International Transactions
veys for work areas 1 – 4 and the second through the ROW civil this point to separate the design packages from the original
design for work areas 1-4. The paths would converge in a sub- group of the 12 work areas into three packages, to issuing the
sequent window as the survey data would be required to com- design for each work area separately. In addition, agreement
plete the “70 percent ROW civil design.” Both paths com- was reached to waive the 30 percent design, and permit submis-
menced with the notice to proceed (NTP). sion of 70 percent designs in lieu of restarting the 30 percent
The start of the vertical and geodetic surveys were delayed 14 design with the revised survey data. Work area one was not
CDs because of a lack of flagmen. The track design survey for effected by the revised alignment and the civil work in that area
work area 1 was a finish-to-start successor to the vertical survey. proceed as planned, however the design for work areas 2-4
On or prior to the NTP, a new baseline survey was to be provid- would continue to be delayed. The review and approval of the
ed which was not completely provided until July 3, 2002. While revised alignment would continue to delay the project in this
the schedule and contemporaneous documentation indicate an time period and it too was impacted by the late survey data.
effort to commence the ROW civil design, all effective work was Near-critical activities were the bridge design and grade crossing
delayed until receipt of the survey data. At that time the ROW civil design. Both of these activities were also subject to the sur-
civil design was “re-started.” In this period the contractor sub- vey constraints and the track alignment. While the bridge
mitted a revised track alignment that differed from the “con- design could proceed, bridge design could not be approved
tract” alignment. The impact of the revised alignment will be until the track alignment was approved. Figure 3 summarizes
apparent in future windows. Figure 1 summarizes the start and the start and production gains and delays for window no. 3.
production gains and delays for window no.1.
Window No. 4 (1 Jul 02 – 31 Jul 02)
Window No. 3 (01 Jun 02 – 30 Jun 02) The critical path continued through track design for work
The critical path changed in window no. 3 from the civil areas 1-4 and also the grade crossings for work areas 1-4. The
ROW design to track design. Survey was no longer the delaying revised alignment was resolved on July 26, 2002, and work was
issue in window three; the delay to the project in this window able to proceed with completing the track and grade crossing
was the alignment. The project design logic was also revised at designs. While the formal approval was not issued until August

Figure 1—Window No. 1 (16 Jan 02 - 28 Feb 02)

Figure 2—Window No. 2 (1 Mar 02 - 31 May 02)

Figure 3—Window No.3 (1 Jun 02 - 30 Jun 02)

CDR.04.8
 2007 AACE International Transactions

Figure 4—Window No.4 (1 Jul 02 - 31 Jul 02)

Figure 5—Window No. 5 (1 Aug 02 - 31 Oct 02)

8, 2002, the formal approval was not a constraint on completion therefore excusable and compensable. These two windows
of the designs. Figure 4 summarizes the start and production combined to grant 26 days of excusable compensable time.
gains and delays for window no. 4.
Window No. 11 (01 Dec 03 – 31 Jan 06)
Window No. 5 (01 Aug 02 – 31 Oct 02) The critical path through this window was the live track work.
The critical path through this window was the canal bridges This was not apparent during the regular project updates and
and miscellaneous structures in work area 1. The completion would not be clearly demonstrated until the delay analysis was
of the bridge design required bridge hydraulic and geotechnical performed.
studies. This information was late, and was not attributed to Because of numerous circumstances and factual issues it was
either the alignment or survey issues. The bridge design was not until 18 months in the project that the parties had knowl-
delayed for 55 days in this period as a result of the alignment edge that the live track curfews would be limited to Saturday
issues and design review delays. Concurrent with these delays nights, thus the critical path was the available Saturdays. The
were the late submission of the bridge hydraulics and geotech- original calendar for this window was the project “global calen-
nical data. Figure 5 summarizes the start and production gains dar” consisting of a standard five-day week with six public holi-
and delays for window no. 5. days. This was never changed during the systematic schedule
updates. However, when the calendar for the live track work
Windows Nos. 6 and 7 (01 Nov 02 – 30 Apr 03) was changed from the global calendar to a Saturday only calen-
The critical path during window no. 6 was through ROW dar the impact to the project was unmistakable. With approved
civil construction and track installation and window no. 7 was changes, there were 131 planned live track curfews required.
through signaling design. A series of changes to the signaling The original contract duration had 117 available curfew peri-
requirements impacted rail construction. In addition, an ods. During the period the live track work was being performed
endangered species was found on the ROW which required test- four planned curfews were cancelled because of other third
ing and relocation to a permitted mitigation site. The latter was party delays, thus extending the number of required curfews to
more a disruption, but did cause intermittent construction 135. The 18 additional Saturdays was a production delay, and
delays. The signaling design changes were excusable and com- equated to 108 calendar days. In addition, during this period
pensable, while the removal of the endangered species could there were four severe weather events for which 21 calendar
have been viewed as a force majeure event and excusable only. days were granted. Figure 6 summarizes the start and produc-
The analysis considered that when excusable/compensable and tion gains and delays for window no.11.
excusable events are concurrent, the time becomes excusable
and compensable. It should also be noted that the owner paid Window Analysis Summary
the direct costs for the testing and relocation of the endangered Figure 7 summarizes the delay analysis for all 12 windows.
species therefore it was considered a differing site condition, and The delay analysis based on the quantification obtained through
the windows analysis methodology determined that 376 days
CDR.04.9
 2007 AACE International Transactions

Figure 6—Window No. 11 (31 Dec 03 - 31 Jan 06)

Figure 7—Window Summary

were excusable the detailed analysis of the project records ic the Contractor provided of the As-Planned Logic Network
resulted in 311 days were excusable and compensable and 65 [32].
days excusable only.
Step Two – Build the As-Built Schedule from the As-Planned
The Case Study Modified TIE Analysis Logic Network
The modified TIE analysis identified 43 “causative events,” The original as-planned logic network was saved and a copy
which when inserted into the baseline schedule resulted in an was used to input as-built data from the monthly updates. The
“entitlement” to 551 calendar days of additional time. The con- as-built data was validated with the contemporaneous project
tractor contended therefore that the delayed completion of 376 records to insure accurate dates for each activity.
days was excusable, and all of the time was compensable.
Further, the 551 days of entitlement suggested that the contrac- Step Three – Identify the Causative Events
tor had, through several strategies, mitigated the delay and Figure 9 is the causative events table prepared for the analy-
accelerated completion for which he was entitled to additional sis. This stage of the analysis was still involved with preparing
compensation. the modified TIE, collecting and inputting data, and not assign-
ing fault or responsibility. Figure 9 also includes the actual start
Step One – Select the As-Planned Logic Network and finish dates (“CE-AS and CE-AF) for each event, and the
The submitted baseline schedule was “adjusted” to reflect the cumulative total float (“TF”) and total days added to the critical
contractor’s execution plan pre-NTP. In addition, the holidays path by each event (“add”) which were generated from the cal-
were corrected, as well as technical corrections to eliminate culation of the impacted schedule and “zeroing-out” Analysis
open ended start-to-start and finish-to-finish relationships. The which takes place in steps 5, 6, and 7. The project actual finish
adjusted baseline schedule was calculated to validate it reflect- (“AF”) as determined by the impact of the causative event to the
ed the initial scheduled completion date. Figure 8 is the graph- critical path is also provided. The contractor stated that if a
CDR.04.10
 2007 AACE International Transactions

Figure 8 - As-Planned Logic Network

causative event is not listed, then it never could have caused ing the 56 days the modified TIE indicated this event added to
additional delay, although it may have had a disruptive impact. the project critical path. The next causative event and the “new
root” is CE0132, “resurvey by TCRC WA8-11.” The logic lead-
Step Four – Add Causative Events ing to the root was noted and the details of the as-impacted to
This is the most difficult step of the process. Once the events the as-built were recorded. The windows analysis has a much
were entered into the as-planned logic network, the impacted different evaluation of the live track events, and the resurvey was
as-planned was recalculated and the results compared with the not an issue at this point in the project. Subsequent changes in
as-built dates to determine “reasonableness.” The impacted as- work area 11 would be included in a change order however this
planned should closely correlate to the as-built. However, in change was concurrent with the live track work.
this instance, the expert did not appear overly concerned with Several steps later, the zeroing out process continued through
an exact correlation noting that if the impacted as-planned station track centers 18’6”, “CE1094.” The total float at this
exceeds the as-built, it demonstrates entitlement, and the recog- point was -235. When CE1094 was zeroed out, the “new root”
nition that every contractor will make some efforts to accelerate is “CE1120,” DRC-WA6/7 30 percent ditches/retention/rtc.
or mitigate the delays. The total float at this point in the process is -227. Figure 9 lists
five causative events with a total float of -227 and only one of
Step Five, Six and Seven these “CE1120” had an impact on the critical path, seven days.
These steps are the core of the modified TIE analysis and When the other four events (“CE118”, “CE1034”, “CE1010”,
include the “zeroing-out” process to determine the contribution “CE1114”) are zeroed out, they did not add any time to the crit-
of each category of causative factor to the project delay. The ical path.
durations of each category of causative factor are set at zero and This process was repeated back until the beginning of the
the impacted schedule is recalculated. The result of each iter- project. In the end, the contractor made the following conclu-
ation is then recorded. (see figure 9) The contractor in its pres- sions.
entation provided the following recap of these steps.
• It was entitled to 551 calendar days of delay.
Zeroing Out Exercise • The actual project overrun is 373 days = 03/26/06 –
• calculate longest path of as-impacted logic; 03/18/05.
• record project duration and root, if root is NTP, delay • It was entitled to an excusable extension of time of 373
caused by contractor; days.
• delete root cause event; • The time extension had an “arguable” concurrency of 57
• re-calculate longest path; days. And,
• repeat until reaching NTP; • The compensable extension of time therefore is 316 days.
• assign responsibility for roots;
• determines excusability only; and The Contractor’s Case Study “Windows Analysis”
• this process does not account for mitigation, therefore it is After completing the modified TIE analysis, the contractor
not the best tool to determine compensability. proceeded to perform a “windows analysis.” The contractor’s
windows analysis was based on the technique defined in CPM
Referring to figure 9, the effects of the “zeroing” out process in Construction Management, and bears no resemblance to
can be observed. The last causative event was the live track the window analysis methodology Nielsen-Wurster employed
events, “CELIVE.” When this event is zeroed out, the project [34]. The reason stated in CPM in Construction
completion total float drops from -551 days to -495 days, reflect- Management, for performing the windows analysis in addition
CDR.04.11
 2007 AACE International Transactions

Figure 9—Causative Events Table

CDR.04.12
 2007 AACE International Transactions
to the modified TIE is “…to measure the actual impact of vari- ties, either smaller windows may have to be used to segregate
ous causative factors upon the progress of the work, as opposed these events, or a zeroing out exercise must be performed with-
to measuring the theoretical impact to the as-planned logic net- in the window to identify the responsibility for the contribution
work…[35].” The following steps define the contractor’s of each delay.
methodology The contractor’s “windows analysis” did not appear to con-
tribute to the analysis. The modified TIE concluded that the
Step One contractor was entitled to 551 days of compensable delay, which
The first step in this analysis was to define the window peri- the “windows analysis” only confirmed.
ods. The first window began with the NTP and ran to the begin-
ning of the first “significant” causative factor. The second win- OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS
dow began at that point and ran to the next “significant ON THE TWO METHODS
causative factor. This process was followed until the end of the
last window was the project completion. The text includes a Window analysis has been acknowledged by many as the most
cautionary note that if the window is run to each and every accurate of the many delay analysis techniques [36]. One of the
causative factor the result could be a day-by-day analysis. benefits of the contemporaneous period analyses is that they
Accordingly, the analyst must make some judgment is setting place the delays in the context of the time and conditions of
the time frame of the individual windows. This could led to when they occurred. Windows analysis is arguably on of the
challenges implying the selection of the time periods may been most persuasive of the techniques in arbitration or litigation.
selected in a manner which influenced the outcome. Window analysis is lauded for its accuracy however that accu-
The text proposes a solution to this dilemma and a simplifica- racy is not without its costs. The critics argue window analysis
tion of the task of defining the windows in using the result of the is document intensive and places a heavy reliance on accurate
zeroing out exercise in the modified TIE analysis to use the project records including systematic schedule updates. Each
commencement of the root causative factors to define the analytical technique whether a “what-if,” “but-for,” or “contem-
beginning and end dates for each window. This was the method poraneous period analysis” relies on contemporaneous project
the contractor used in his analysis. records and begins with data gathering and data analysis. The
quality, accuracy, and organization of the data will impact each
Step Two technique for better or worse, and without question will have a
Once the window periods were identified, the contractor direct impact on choice of the technique to use for the analysis.
made yet another copy of the as-planned logic network and The quality of the contemporaneous project documentation
labeled it window no. 1 (TW01). The contractor inserted into will impact the analysis no matter what technique is employed.
this window schedule file only the causative factors that started Very few projects have complete, detailed documentation. In
in window one. The duration of the causative factors are the the absence of systematic schedule updates, which happens all
anticipated duration rather than the actual durations. The too often, if accurate daily records are available, an as-built
activities in the first window were statused to the end of the win- schedule can, albeit with some effort, be constructed. The skill
dow based on the actual start and finish dates form the as-built and ability of the analyst are tested in these instances to provide
schedule. experience and judgment, tempered with a dose of common
sense.
Step Three One of the unique features of this case study was that both
Once the update was completed the window file was resched- sides reached agreement at the beginning of the evaluation to
uled with the data date being the end date of the window one. provide open access to each other’s documentation. The owner
The impact if any from the causative factors and the perform- was a public entity and so the production of documents was
ance of work on the baseline network logic was then calculated. either going to be done cooperatively or via a FOIA request.37
The contractor used Prolog™ as its project management tool,
Step Four and scanned all incoming and outgoing correspondence with
The window one file (TW01) was then copied and labeled links to the database; the meeting minutes, RFIs and daily
window no. 2 (TW02). The causative factors that began in win- reports had been entered directly into Prolog™. The contractor
dow two were inserted into this schedule file. The activities in made its Prolog™ database available to Nielsen-Wurster which
the second window were statused to the end of the window peri- greatly facilitated the document review. One can not underes-
od based on the actual start and finish dates from the as-built timate the beneficial impact this had on the analysis and the
schedule. ability to resolve all disputed items.
Dividing the project into discrete windows also provides a very
Step Five functional format for document review and analysis. The ana-
Steps three and four of this process were repeated for the lyst is generally looking at the project records for each window
remaining 27 window periods the contractor defined in step period, and focusing on those records referencing events which
one. relate to the schedule activities which comprise the critical and
near critical paths. On the other hand, TIE suggests that the
Step Six analyst must identify all causative factors, or at least “…all
In the event there are multiple overlapping causative factors causative factors that may have impacted the project [38].” It is
in a window period which are the responsibility of differing par- arguable that one can not know if a causative factor impacted

CDR.04.13
 2007 AACE International Transactions
the project until the evaluation is done, or else the analyst is pre- to challenges and potentially the dismissal of the analysis all
judging which factors may or may not have impacted the proj- together.
ect which opens the analyst to challenges on why certain factors Several of the steps in the modified TIE method beg the ques-
were considered over others. tion, why? The second step in the modified TIE is the construc-
One critic has suggested that window analysis may produce tion of the as-built schedule. This appears to be unnecessary if
inaccurate results when approved schedule updates are not regular monthly updates are available, and flies in the face of
taken into consideration when the baseline is modified [39]. multiple court decision from M.S.I. Corp (1968) to P.J. Dick
According to George R. Stumpf, the courts will reject a windows Inc. (2002) [43].
analysis that is based only on questionable schedule updates. The third step calls for the preparation of an as-built logic dia-
Stumpf provides an example of a case in which there was a gram. O’Brien and Plotnick admit that it may be possible for
change in the logic. The scheduling analysis expert used win- selected portions of the project, but is virtually impossible for
dows analysis to evaluate the delay, but a change in logic was the entire project. Likewise they admit the process involves a
not considered. As a consequence, the Board of Contract great deal of conjecture and subjectivity [44]. One might ques-
Appeals said that the scheduling expert failed to use a current tion the need to construct an as-built logic when the actual
critical path method (CPM) schedule to evaluate the delay on sequence of work is seemingly apparent in the monthly updates;
the project. This was not the fault of the technique, but the which also reflect actual changes in logic.
technician. The fourth step in the modified TIE was the identification of
The absence of systematic schedule updates does not prevent all causative factors, or at least those most likely to have impact-
the use of window analysis however it will make it more diffi- ed the critical path, and inserting them into the as-planned logic
cult. Schedule updates can be recreated using the as-built network. In the more traditional TIA, these fragnets are insert-
schedule, the as-planned schedule and the contemporaneous ed into the updated schedules.
project records, as if periodic updating had been done during In the case study 43 causative events were defined. However,
the course of construction. This requires a great deal of care, with 166 change orders, several hundred RFIs, and a number of
and in recreating these updates the analyst must rely solely on constructive changes, the real list of causative factors should
information that was available at the time the update would have been a great deal longer. In the final evaluation 18 of the
have been performed. 43 causative events did not add any time to the schedule. There
A criticism of the various delay analysis techniques is how well is no practical way that these events could have been eliminat-
they address the classification of delays and concurrency; a clear ed prior to the analysis, however in the window analysis method-
delineation of cause and effect; and, bias to one party or anoth- ology only those critical or near-critical actives which incur a
er and the ease with which the outcome can be manipulated gain or a delay are analyzed, and the contributing causes and
[40]. Window analysis is the only technique, which address their effects are assessed. Further the assumption that if the
each of these issues. The suggestion that the selection of arbi- causative factor is not listed, then it never could have caused
trary windows can affect the outcome ignores the methodology additional delay is leap of faith which was not supported by the
Window analysis uses to select the windows. It is not an arbi- more exacting window analysis.
trary selection but one the CPM Schedule updates identify, typ- The zeroing out process in the modified TIE appears to share
ically when the critical path changes.41 Other critics have sug- several common traits with the “collapsed as-built” or “but-for”
gested that the critical path may change in the middle of an analyses, and thus is subject to the same challenges and limita-
update period and thus a daily window is a more accurate tions applied to those methodologies. As noted by Jon Wickwire
approach [42]. (et.al.) and other authors, time impact analysis is usually applied
If one considers window analysis to be expensive and time in a prospective manner and therefore the zeroing out activity is
consuming, then a daily window approach would be untenable. not required [45].
The analysis of the events in any window is performed on a daily Step 5 is the most difficult in the process, and invites the
basis to determine the gains or delays, and responsibility for greatest challenge. The addition of activities after that fact to
each. The typical schedule updates are monthly, and it is with replicate a delay is fraught with danger, and should not be some-
the update that a change in the critical path would be recog- thing that we “try at home!” Citing Gulf Contracting and Titan
nized. However in the event the critical path changes between Pacific, Jon Wickwire views “…hypothetical impacted as-
updates the window period could be selected to reflect that planned network delay analyses that do not take into account
changes. The issue is with the updates periods and not the tech- actual events on the project as…unacceptable measures for eval-
nique. As noted previously, the window can fall in the mid point uating project delays [46].” At this point in the process the
of an update period, and with the monthly update and contem- impacted as-planned schedule is compared with the as-built
poraneous documentation, the schedule could be updated to schedule and the two should be relatively similar. In this case
“recreated” for any point in time in the period that the change the impacted as-planned reflected a completion date 551 days
in the critical path occurred. The analyst must consider if the late vs. the as-built completion which was 376 days late. The
“recreation” is necessary and would it substantially alter the out- delta of 175 days does not represent a close correlation and to
come if it were not performed. Correction of schedule updates assume that it might reflect the contractors efforts to accelerate
to reflect erroneous data must be done and attention given to or mitigate the delays is difficult to accept.
logic changes which may not be reflected in an update. Only In step 6, once all the causative factors and their TIE informa-
those corrections which are required to insure the integrity of tion are inserted in the as-planned schedule, a standard CPM
the analysis should be performed, all others will certainly lead calculation is prepared. The resulting calculation is then com-

CDR.04.14
 2007 AACE International Transactions
pared with the as-built schedule and should approximate the as- window analysis. In addition, TIE does not account for mitiga-
built schedule, if it does not it is probably incorrect. In this case tion, therefore not best tool to determine compensability [47].
the outcome of the comparison and the TIE indicated an enti- The case study demonstrates that while similar titles are used
tlement of 551 days, vs. the actual delay of 376 days. Thus the to describe the analyses, the actual methods are dramatically dif-
TIE did not correlate to the as-built and the discrepancies iden- ferent, with very different results. The differences in the two
tified and corrected. This is a problem for the TIE and not a “window” methodologies are summarized in figure 10.

Figure 10—Comparison of Window Methodologies

CDR.04.15
 2007 AACE International Transactions
he success of this effort was in great part because of the 2. Al-Saggaf, Hamed A. The Five Commandments of

T agreement the parties reached at the beginning of the

negotiations, to exchange documents and cooperate
Construction Project Delay Analysis, Cost Engineering
Vol. 40, No. 4. (April 1998).
fully. The owner was prepared to litigate, if necessary. 3. Arditi, D. and T. Pattanakitchamroon. Selecting a Delay
However, the owner had a railroad to operate and with the com- Analysis Method in Resolving Construction Claims.
pletion of the double tracking was in a position to significantly International Journal of Project Management, 24, 145 -
improve service, and increase ridership. Cooperation and com- 155 (2006).
munication in lieu of litigation was the right choice. The 4. Baram, George E. Delay Analysis – Issues Not for Granted,
review of the entitlement, causation and effects of each of the AACE International Transactions, (1994).
direct damage issues was critical in understanding the events 5. Baram, George E. The Window Methods of Analyzing
that took place each and every day, and were critical to the Delay Claims, AACE International Transactions (2000).
preparation of the window analysis. 6. Barba, Evans M. Prospective and Retrospective Time Impact
One of the major contributions of the window analysis was in Analysis, Construction Briefing, (July 2005).
the calculation of damages. The window analysis provided an 7. Barba, Evans M. Time Impact Analysis: If it’s such a great
exact quantification of compensable days of delay and the peri- concept why is it that it almost never works! (And what you
od when those delays occurred. The contractor’s cost system can do about it), Construction Superconference (2003).
was able to generate the actual general conditions expenses for 8. Battikha, Mireille and Sabah Alkass. A Cost-Effective Delay
any time period on the project, therefore with the window Analysis Technique, AACE International Transactions,
analysis it was possible to link cost with the compensable delay (1994).
periods. The parties had agreed to the cost quantification 9. Beihagi, Kemyar. Project Monitoring With Windows
process and as a result it reduced the contractor’s original Analysis, ASCE 4th International Engineering And
request for compensation. The window analysis made a second Construction Conference, (July 28, 2006).
contribution to the quantification of damages and this was in 10. Bramble, Barry B. and Michael T. Callahan.
the determination of the cost of capital. The direct costs were Construction Delay Claims; Wiley Law Publications,
apportioned over the time in which the expenses were incurred, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2nd Edition, (1992).
the periods for the delay damages were already known, and to 11. Bubshait, Abdulaziz A. and Michael J. Cuningham.
these the disruption costs were appended. The applicable inter- Management of Concurrent Delay in Construction. Cost
est rate for each period was obtained, and the daily interest and Engineering, Vol. 46, No. 6 (June 2004).
cumulate cost of capital was a straight forward calculation. 12. Carson, Christopher. Claim Analysis Nested in Schedule
(Note that this example did not experience multiple constant Updates, PMICOS Conference, Orlando, Florida (2006).
and pervasive changes that are referred to in the industry as 13. Chua, D.K.H. and L.J. Shen. Key Constraints Analysis with
cumulative impact which may make the quantification of dam- Integrated Production Scheduler, Journal of Construction
ages more complex). Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(7), pp. 753-
We return to our original question. “Is there a correct way to 764 (2005).
perform delay analyses? Or if not a “correct way” is one 14. Ciccarelli, J. and M. Cohen. Window Analysis: The Method
method, better than another and more likely to provide a more and the Myth, AACE International Transactions, (2005).
accurate exposition of the delay?” 15. Cushman, Robert F., John D. Carter, Paul J. Gorman, and
Presenting a detailed CPM analysis is hard enough, and does Douglas F. Coppi. Proving and Pricing Construction
not need to be made more difficult with a complex and convo- Claims, Third Edition, Aspen Law and Business, New
luted methodology. Clearly the courts over the past 32 years York, (2001).
have demonstrated a keen understanding of CPM, delay, and 16. Douglas, E. Documenting the Schedule Basis, AACE
the manifestations of all manner of delay analyses techniques. International Transactions, (2005).
Their opinions have defined a direction, and in some cases a 17. Faridi, A.S. and S.M. El-Sayegh. Significant Factors
precise roadmap, which when followed will lead to a more Causing Delay in the UAE Construction Industry,
acceptable result; and rejected those that won’t. Thus the road Construction Management and Economics, 24, (2006)
is getting narrower and the options fewer. That said, assuming pp. 1167-1176.
a reasonable level of project documentation; a scheduling 18. Finke, Michael Ross Contemporaneous Analysis of
process that while not perfect provides a fairly accurate portray- Excusable Delays, Cost Engineering, Vol. 39, No. 12,
al of the plan and actual execution of the work; in other words (December 1997).
a fairly typical project, the window analysis method will provide 19. Fondahl, J.W. The Development of the Construction
the parties with a more accurate, supportable, and more easily Engineer; Past Progress and Future Problems, Journal of
understood presentation of events, and allocation of responsibil- Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 117
ity [48]. This can be achieved at a cost and expenditure of time 3, (1991): pp. 380-392.
and effort which are more than justified by the result. 20. Fruchtman, Eric, Z. Delay Analysis-Eliminating the Smoke
and Mirrors, AACE International Transaction, (2000).
REFERENCES 21. Galloway, Patricia D. and Nielsen, Kris R. Concurrent
1. AACE International, Recommended Practice No.7.2.1 Schedule Delay in International Contracts, The
Planning & Scheduling – Time Impact Analysis, (Draft – International Construction Law Review, Volume 7, Part
Peer Review) (December 2006). 4, (Oct. 1990): 386-401.

CDR.04.16
 2007 AACE International Transactions
22. Gothand, Dirk D. Schedule Delay Analysis: Modified Dissertation, presented to the faculty of the Graduate
Windows Approach, Cost Engineering Vol. 45, No. 9, School, University of Texas, Austin, (August, 1998).
(Sept. 2003). 42. Sandlin, L.S. J.R. Sapple, and R.M. Gautreaux. “Phased
23. Griffith, A. Scheduling Practices and Project Success, AACE Root Cause Analysis – a Distinctive View on Construction
International Transactions, (2005). Claims,” Cost Engineering, 46(6), (2004): pp. 16-20.
24. Hegazy, T. Optimization of Resource Allocation and 43. Sanvito, Paolo, Franco Caron, Simone Valentini, Time
Leveling Using Genetic Algorithms, Journal of Impact Analysis In Engineering & Contracting Projects:
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE An Industrial Case.
125(3), pp. 167-175, (1999). 44. Schumacher, Lee. Quantifying and Apportioning Delay on
25. Hegazy, T. and K. Zang. Daily Windows Delay Analysis, Construction Projects, Cost Engineering 37(2) (February
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 1995): pp. 11- 13.
ASCE 131(5), pp. 505-512, (2005). 45. Sgarlata, M.A. and C.J. Brasco. Successful Claims
26. Lee, Dr. Jae-Seob Construction Delay Analysis Method, Resolution Through an Understanding of the Law
AACE International Transactions, (2003). Governing Allocation of Risk for Delay and Disruption. CM
27. Levin, P. Construction Contract Claims, Changes and ejournal, CMAA (2004).
Disputes Resolution, ASCE Press, Second Edition, New 46. Stoll, Barton Lee, James Edward O’Reilly, and Lansford C.
York, (1998). Bell. Methodologies For Determining Construction Contract
28. Livengood, John C. Calculating Imaginary Numbers: Time Time And Evaluating Contract Time Extensions - Final
Quantification in Acceleration, Warner Construction Report. SCDOT Research Project 652, Department of
Consultants, Inc., Newsletter (November 2006). Civil Engineering, Clemson University, (April, 2006).
29. Lovejoy, Vera A. Claims Schedule Development and 47. Stumpf, George R. Schedule Delay Analysis, Cost
Analysis: Collapsed As-Built Scheduling for Beginners, Cost Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 7, (July, 2000).
Engineering 46(1) (2004), pp. 27-30. 48. Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers,
30. Lowe, Richard H., Evans M. Barba, and Gregory B. Lare. Modification Impact Evaluation Guide, EP415-1-3,
View From Across the Pond: An American Perspective on the Washington, D.C.
Society of Construction Law’s Delay and Disruption 49. Department of Veterans Affairs, “VACPM Handbook, 4-
Protocol, The Construction Lawyer, 27(1), (Winter 2007). 08-11,” Washington, D.C.
31. Kim, K. and J.M. de la Garza. Evaluation of the Resource- 50. Weist, J.D. A Heuristic Model for Scheduling large Projects
Constrained Critical Path Method Algorithms, Journal of with Limited Resources, Management Science, 13(6)
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE (1967).
131(5), pp. 522-532, (2005). 51. Wickwire, Jon M. and Stephen B. Hurlbut and Lance J.
32. McCullough, Robert B. CPM Schedules in Construction Lerman. Use of Critical Path Method Techniques in
Claims From the Contractor’s Perspective, AACE Contract Claims; Issues and Developments, 1974-1988.
International Transactions (1999). pp. 288-391
33. Menesi, Wail. Construction Delay Analysis Under Multiple 52. Wickwire, Jon M., Thomas J. Driscoll, Scott B. Hillman,
Baseline Updates, Masters Thesis, presented to the faculty and Stephen B. Hurlbut. Construction Scheduling:
of the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, School of Preparation, Liability, and Claims, Second Edition,
Civil Engineering, (2007). Aspen Publishers, New York (2003).
34. Mohan, Satish B. and Khalid S. Al-Gahtani. Current Delay 53. Wickwire, Jon M. and Stuart Ockman, Use of Critical Path
Analysis Techniques and Improvements, Cost Engineering, Method on Contract Claims-2000, The Construction
Vol. 48, No. 9, (September 2006). Lawyer (October 1999) pp. 12-21.
35. Nguyen, Long D. and William Ibbs. Delay Analysis 54. Willis, R.J., Critical Path Analysis and Resource
Considering Resource Allocation, University of Constrained Project Scheduling-Theory and Practice,
California, Berkeley, California (2006). European Journal of Operational Research (1985).
36. O’Brien, James J. and Fredric L. Plotnick. CPM in 55. Winter, Ron. Time Impact Analysis, unpublished paper,
Construction Management, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill, (December 9, 2004).
New York (2006). 56. Winter, Jeremy and Peter Johnson. Resolution of Complex
37. Ockman, Stuart. Measuring Success with Claims Delay Claims, A Report on the Meeting of the Society of
Management, PMI Proceedings (1986). Construction Law Report by Samuel Townend, London
38. Ostrowski, Victor, M. and Michael T. Midgette. (2000).
Concurrent Delay Analysis in Litigation, Cost 57. Yang, Jyh-Bin, Chih-Kuei Kao, and Yi-Yao Lee. System
Engineering, Vol. 48, No. 1 (January 2006). Requirement Analysis of a Construction Delay Analysis
39. Ottesen, Jeffery, L. Concentrated Window Analysis Results, System, ISCAR (2006).
AACE International Transactions, (2006). 58. Zack, James G. Claimsmanship: Current Perspective,
40. Pickavance, Keith. Delay and Disruption in Construction Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Contracts, Second Edition, LLP Reference Publishing, Vol. 119, No. 3, P 480, (September 1993).
London. (2000). 59. Zack, James G. But-For Schedules—Analysis and Defense,
41. Popescu-Kohler, Iuliana Anamaria, Improvements to Cost Engineering, Vol. 43, No. 8, (August 2001).
Construction Delay Analysis Techniques, Doctoral

CDR.04.17
 2007 AACE International Transactions
60. Zack, James G. Calculation and Recovery of Home Office
Overhead, AACE International Transactions (2001).
61. Zack, James G. Schedule Delay Analysis, Is there
Agreement. James G Zack, presentation (2003).
62. Zack, James G. Pacing Delay – the Practical Effect, AACE
International Transaction (1999).
63. Zack, James G. Delay and Delay Anlysis: Isn’t it Simple?
First ICEC and IPMA Global Congress on Project
Management, Ljubljana, Slovenia (April 26, 2006).
64. Zafar, Zartab Q. Construction Project Delay Analysis, Cost
Engineering, 38(3), (March 1996), pp. 23-28.

Mr. Bruce Evans Hallock PSP CFCC

Senior Associate
The Nielsen-Wurster Group, Inc.
4901 NW 17th Way, Ste. 503
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309, US
Phone: +1.954.745.7474
Email: brucenwg@aol.com

Mr. Pradip M. Mehta

Senior Associate
The Nielson-Wurster Group, Inc.
1060 State Road, Ste. 200
Princeton, NJ 08540-1423, US
Phone: +1..609.497.7300 X 32
Email: pradipnwg@aol.com

CDR.04.18
 2007 AACE International Transactions

Attachment A

Summary of the Literature on the Strengths and Weaknesses of Current Delay Analysis Methodologies

The literary review set forth in this Attachment A is based on the review provided in the article entitled “Selecting a Delay
Analysis Method in Resolving Construction Claims” by David Arditi and Thanat Pattanakitchamroon [49]. Four additional arti-
cles were added to those reviewed in the original paper: George Baram, “The Window Methods of Analyzing Delay Claims” [5],
Ockman, Stuart, “Measuring Success with Claims Management,” [37], Wickwire, Jon M. and Stuart Ockman, “Use of Critical
Path Method on Contract Claims -2000,” [53], and James G. Zack, Jr. “Schedule Delay Analysis, Is there Agreement” [61]. In
addition, the original comments were expanded, and in some instances corrected.
The original review comments are on the first line of the matrix opposite the name of the cited author and the bibliography
reference. Supplemental comments are in italics on the second line under the article citation. The extent of the literature and
the interest in the subject warrants a complete historiography of delay analysis techniques.

CDR.04.19
2007 AACE International Transactions

CDR.04.20
2007 AACE International Transactions

CDR.04.21
2007 AACE International Transactions

CDR.04.22
2007 AACE International Transactions

CDR.04.23
2007 AACE International Transactions

CDR.04.24
2007 AACE International Transactions

CDR.04.25