See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342693165

Visualizing the Impact of Concurrent Delays Using Linear Scheduling Method

Conference Paper · July 2020

CITATIONS READS
0 533

2 authors:

Ricardo M Tapia Douglas D. Gransberg

TNA Consulting Corp Gransberg & Associates Inc.
4 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    425 PUBLICATIONS   2,973 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Qualifications-Based Selection View project

Disputes in Highway Projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Douglas D. Gransberg on 04 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PAPER ID CDR-3551

VISUALIZING THE IMPACT OF CONCURRENT SCHEDULE DELAYS USING LINEAR SCHEDULING

METHOD

Ricardo M. Tapia, PhD; Douglas D. Gransberg, PhD, PE

Abstract

Quantifying the impact of concurrent delays due to differing site conditions, weather, and quality
issues transcends merely revising schedule durations. Differing site conditions typically occur
early in the project, directly or indirectly impacting subsequent activities. When concurrent
delays for weather and contractor quality problems are added to the mix, forensic analysis
becomes complex. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the courts have recognized
four different methods for using critical path method for forensic delay analysis. The paper
demonstrates linear scheduling method as a tool to visualize the as-built and the as-planned
schedules in a single graphic. The tool combines contractor daily work report data with
visualizations of the geotechnical baseline report, actual weather data, and quality control
reports. The paper demonstrates the approach by applying it to a delay claim found on an
earthen dam project that was part of the Panamá Canal Expansion project. The paper concludes
that the proposed tool furnishes a common ground for explaining contractor and owner-caused
delays, providing a common foundation from which to negotiate schedule impact.

Final accepted manuscript:

Tapia P. R.M. and Gransberg, D.D., “Visualizing the Impact of Concurrent Delays Using Linear
Scheduling Method,” 2020 Transactions, CDR-3551, AACE, Int‘l, Chicago, Illinois, June 28-July 1,
2020.
Introduction

The value that the critical path method (CPM) has added to the construction planning and
scheduling effort since its introduction in the 1960’s is unquestionable. At its foundation, the
mathematical algorithm in which it relies is based on the activities that are identified and the
relationships between them as the scheduler assigns a precedence logic. The duration of the
identified activities is derived by applying an estimated production rate to the amount of work
that is needed [1], the scheduler then needs to manually resolve spatial conflicts in the
construction site and update the entire model on a regular basis to reflect the actual progress.

To manage a construction schedule, two main efforts are required. First, the actual progress of
the work must be documented as as-built events, and second, the remaining work must be
scheduled according to the contractor’s expected sequence of future events as as-planned
activities. As the work progresses, the amount of work in as-built activities increase and the as-
planned activities decrease. CPM was developed as a rational method to optimize the sequence
of the remaining work for any update and to identify those activities that are considered critical
to the project duration and require close attention. The benefits of CPM for planning and
controlling a project are vast, but the method was not developed to perform detailed
retrospective analysis to demonstrate the causes of delay. Considering that CPM is based on a
mathematical algorithm that can get significantly complex as the level of detail needed for a
project increases, the method by itself does not possess the ability to easily communicate the
results of a forensic analysis, which is the basis for determining disruption causes.

This issue becomes critical when the details of events that occurred in a project must be
explained to a jury of twelve if a given dispute reaches the courts. In such scenario, the
communication must be as intuitive and simple as possible. According to Guévremont and
Hammad [2], the “quality of the presentation” not the “inherent nature” of the method of
analysis is what drives the decision in a jury trial. Hence, the audience must be able to
immediately understand the results of method that is used to perform a forensic analysis. Just
like the output must be easily understandable, the input information must convey trust to the
audience and must be based on actual data from reliable sources. That means the analysis
method must be true to facts and free from simplifying assumptions.

Resolving disputes related to the schedule is not mainly an issue of complex mathematical
models or intricated activity structures. In fact, it is fundamentally a communication issue. To
reach a negotiated solution for the dispute, each party must be able to clearly understand their
counterpart’s interpretation of the events that caused the delay. Is in this function that CPM has
been found to have both shortcomings and inconsistencies. No less than four different forensic
CPM schedule analysis methods have evolved, been recognized by the courts, and memorialized
to various degrees in US case law, creating another layer of complication [3]. As a result, the
purpose of this paper is to explore alternatives to the CPM method to furnish “a scientific,
verifiable, and repeatable analysis that establishes the existence and quantum of delays and
disruptions” [3]. The main contribution of this paper to the body of knowledge is to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the Linear Scheduling Method (LSM) in objectively visualizing the events that
occurred in a project and leverage it as a communication tool that can be used for negotiations
to resolve delay-related disputes. Additionally, the same LSM output can be employed to
graphically communicate the facts of the case for the courts when negotiations fail.

Therefore, the crux of resolving schedule-related disputes is fundamentally an issue of

communication. To reach a negotiated settlement, the owner must understand the contractor’s
interpretation of the events and their impact and vice versa. Furthermore, the CPM methodology
has been found to have both shortcomings and inconsistencies. No less than four different
forensic CPM schedule analysis methods have evolved, been recognized by the courts, and
memorialized to various degrees in US case law, creating another layer of complication [3]. As a
result, the purpose of this paper is to explore alternatives to the CPM method to furnish “a
scientific, verifiable, and repeatable analysis that establishes the existence and quantum of
delays and disruptions” [3].

The paper will demonstrate the potential of LSM by applying it to an actual case, the Borinquen
1E Dam which was part of the Panama Canal Expansion Program. The reader is referred to Tapia
et al. [4] for the specific details of the Borinquen 1E Dam claim. The paper will focus on LSM’s
ability to enhance the communication of complex, concurrent delay information by visualizing
the facts that lead to it.

Documented Issues with CPM and Forensic Schedule Analysis

To better understand the complexities of the CPM method, one must remember that it is merely
a model used to estimate project duration based on the scheduler’s logic and activity duration
assumptions [5]. Its ultimate purpose is to provide the scheduler a detailed understanding of the
project’s technical and precedence relationships to optimize the sequence of work [6]. To do so,
CPM differentiates between critical activities and activities with float. The forensic analyst’s focus
is a retrospective calculation of the differences between the as-planned (also called as-bid)
schedule and the as-built schedule. Hence, there exists a fundamental difference in the
computational modeling needs of the project’s scheduler and the forensic analyst. Kelly and
Franczek [3] maintain that it is “incorrect to assume that the analyst should (or even could)
approach a forensic delay analysis in a manner identical to that which the scheduler would have
done during the project,” and “the scheduler and the analyst have different needs and therefore
[need] different tools and techniques...” Given that CPM was specifically developed as a forward-
oriented scheduling tool, it is not surprising that its utility as a retrospective forensic analysis tool
has been found to be less than ideal [2].

Forensic schedule analysis is primarily used to “prove causation between liability (the delaying
event) [also termed entitlement] and damage (the fact and extent of the delay) [also termed
costs]” [2]. To be effective, both parties must be confident that the data used to populate the
model and to quantify the schedule impact is accurate and that the calculations used to process
the data are appropriate. In light of the above discussion, it can be concluded that an alternative
to CPM for the forensic analysis is in order. The paper uses the “scientific, verifiable, and
repeatable analysis” standard provided by Kelly and Franczek [3] to evaluate the technical
efficacy of the linear scheduling method as a promising alternative.

Communicating Forensic Schedule Analyses Using Linear Scheduling

A proven alternative to activity-based scheduling is production-based scheduling using a process

called Linear Scheduling Method (LSM). LSM was developed in the 1950s by the Navy, who
named it Line of Balance (LOB) and employed it on warship production. US heavy civil contractors
subsequently adapted LSM for highway construction scheduling before critical path method
(CPM) scheduling was developed in the 1960’s [7]. LSM has continued to be used to plan project
sequences of work by the construction industry because of its production orientation and its
simplicity (Jones, unpublished lecture, 2005). One author describes the CPM versus LSM
comparison as follows:

“One of the disadvantages of network schedules and bar charts is their inability to
distinguish rates of progress among individual activities. The number of units that can be
completed in any one activity within any period is not apparent. LSM, however, measures
the number of units that will be completed within any period of the activity’ duration.
This form of a project schedule is practical in understanding the changes of productivity
visually.” [8]

More importantly, LSM output is completely visual. Its matrix-like layout represents activities as
different shapes, visually differentiated by colors or patterns, presenting the schedule as a picture
corelated to physical locations on the project site. This feature eliminates the need to
conceptualize the activities in the CPM within the context of two-dimensional construction plans
[9]. The same feature makes it easy to correlate with the graph’s time and location axes with
other cogent information that either follows the alignment of the project (such as the ground
profile for example) or that changes over time (such as stockpiled materials for a specific activity).
Thus, LSM provides a multi-dimensional information content that allows the analyst or a jury to
visually relate multiple instances of causal facts in a single graphic. The forensic linear schedule
can also be constructed in a manner that directly graphically relates the as-built schedule to the
alleged causes of delay or disruption and display the change in progress of the impacted features
of work over time to assist in evaluating the schedule impact. “Linear schedules can communicate
even the most complex construction schedules easily” [10].

Forensic Data Collection and Input

Data quality is the key to forensic analysis. It must be remembered that the durations in an
approved as-planned schedule are estimates not actuals. In the retrospective analysis of
construction project progress, the use of routine documentation such as daily work reports,
quality control reports and diaries have long been recognized by the courts as definitive evidence
of actual events [2]. Shrestha et al. [11] demonstrated a method for constructing as-built
schedules electronically from Iowa Department of Transportation inspectors daily work reports.
The method relies completely on the documentation and requires no human intervention or
interpretation. The output is a bar chart. Tapia and Gransberg [4] [12]extended the same form of
input data to populate a forensic linear schedule using contractor daily progress reports on an
earthen dam project built for the Panamá Canal Authority. The output from that study will be
used to illustrate the visual delay claim analysis method proposed in the remaining sections of
the paper. The strength of using routine daily progress reports is in the fact that both parties to
the issue typically have had an opportunity to review and correct their content, making them a
consensus view of actual events [11]. More importantly, this data is strongly supported by
decades of construction case law, making it difficult contradict [3].

Trust in the Forensic Model

Hoshino et al. [13] state that "the choice of a particular forensic scheduling method is
substantially influenced by the availability of source data that can be validated and determined
reliable for the purpose of the analysis." These factors lead to the “scientific, verifiable, and
repeatable” standard necessary for the forensic model to stand up in court. LSM is without
question scientific. It uses a specific protocol that includes both calculation and symbology. When
actual project progress report data is utilized, the verifiability of both the input and the output is
easily tested [14]. Finally, given the same input data, two analysts will produce nearly identical
results (Jones, unpublished lecture, 2005) [15]. Thus, repeatability is validated. Perhaps most
importantly, once the parties to the issue agree on the specific input data, both sides are looking
at the same graphical interpretation of the factual data, enhancing the probability of reaching an
agreement outside the courts.

Visual Forensic Analysis of Delay

US case law supports the following causes based on legal entitlements: defective and deficient
contract documents, differing site conditions, cardinal change, acceleration, suspension,
termination, directed change, constructive change, implied warranty, delays and disruption,
impossibility of performance, weather, strikes, maladministration, superior knowledge, owner-
furnished items, unjust enrichment, and variations in quantities [16]. Each cause includes a
component of possible schedule impact which would need to be proven forensically. The paper
will illustrate the application of LSM forensic analysis to a delay claim filed on the Borinquen Dam
project, a component of the Panamá Canal Expansion Program. The claim was based on alleged
differing site conditions and adverse weather. The owner’s position was that a differing site
condition did exist, but the contractor created concurrent delays due to quality control issues,
adversely impacted its own production due to poor management, and that alleged weather
delays were not supported by demonstrated production during wet weather. The strength of the
proposed method is that it correlates geotechnical, quality control and weather data from the
claimant’s daily progress reports with approved schedule visually, which in turn, facilitates the
mutual understanding of delay impact results.
Borinquen 1E Dam Example

The Borinquen 1E Dam was a component of the Pacific Access Channel Phase 4 project. It consists
of a 2.3 kilometer (1.4 miles), multi-zone rockfill dam with an impervious clay core, designed to
hold the water for the Pacific approach channel to the new locks. The dam is located on top of
very complex in-situ geology. The geotechnical foundation treatment included a 16 meter (52.5
feet) deep grout curtain.

Massive earthwork projects constructed in the tropics are always vulnerable to disputes due to
differing site conditions and rainfall. A recent review of differing site condition case law [17]
found that it is difficult for an owner to shed differing site conditions liability (also termed
entitlement), regardless of the exculpatory language present in the contract. Delays due to
unusually severe weather fall into a similar category. Therefore, given the high probability that a
weather-sensitive earthen dam project will experience both geotechnical and weather issues, it
becomes important to use the approved post-award, as-bid schedule as the benchmark against
which potential delays can be compared [18]. An as-bid linear schedule memorializes the
accuracy of the contractor’s production assumptions in a graphical manner, allowing the analysis
of complicated concurrent delays. Put another way, when the as-built production is shown to be
less than the project’s as-bid production before the weather or site condition disruptions, then a
portion of the claimed delay is directly attributable to the delay due to the contractor’s
concurrent production loss.

Accounting for Geotechnical Risk

Based on the geological complexity of the Borinquen Dam’s foundation, the key source of
information for determining logical as-planned production rate assumptions is the interpretation
of subsurface studies. The Panamá Canal Authority performed an extensive foundation
exploration. The subsurface investigations revealed a complex system of soil and rock strata that
included geological faults. A Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) was prepared from the output
and included in the contract. The major subsurface risk was the ability to seal geological faults.
The risk involved the actual amount of time to complete the grouting based on possible variations
in final quantities of grout. As a result, the grouting production rate assumption drove the
duration of foundation works in the post-award approved schedule. The grouting risk was
realized when its duration exceed that found in the approved schedule. Hence, making
quantifying the difference between the as-built and the approved, as-planned schedule essential
to equitably resolving the claim.

The LSM provides two dimensions to represent a project schedule: distance and time. Correlating
the information contained in the GBR with the as-planned and as-built schedules, requires a
mutually agreed interpretation of the GBR information [19]. In this case, the technical
interpretation was simplified into three risk categories based on the severity of the conditions.
The categories are then color-coded, correlated to project stationing, and displayed on the X-
axis. Doing so permits the analyst to visualize the locations of those subsurface conditions that
will most greatly affect the grouting production in both the time and distance dimensions.
Figure 1 shows the interpreted GBR for the Borinquen Dam’s alignment. The color code used
indicates the complexity of the foundation works along the Dam’s foundation alignment is as
follows:
• red = high,
• yellow = medium, and
• green = low.

Figure 1 – Color code interpretation of the Geotechnical Baseline Report

Reducing the geotechnical conditions to color codes facilitates a high-level understanding of the
complex expected behavior of the subsurface conditions. This also facilitates communicating this
very technical information to audiences without a background in geotechnical engineering.

Accounting for Weather Risk

In tropical construction, weather is always a driving factor for earthwork production, making the
correlation of rainfall data with actual production meaningful. Panamá has two seasons, rainy
and dry, with easily marked timeframes. The y-axis of the LSM provides a place to mark the
beginning and end of each season, and the actual rainfall data can also be displayed as a
supplementary table aligned with the LSM’s selected time scale.
The dam’s clay core was the most weather-sensitive feature of work and was on the project’s
critical path. Hence, it factored prominently in the weather delay claim. As-built production rates
were collected from the contractor’s daily work reports and summarized for each month. These
rates were then color-coded based on the actual rate compared to the planned rate. Red
indicates actual production below the range planned production (worst possible case); yellow is
within the range of planned production, and green indicates that actual production exceeded the
upper end of the assumed range’s best possible case. Figure 2 illustrates the correlation of rainfall
data and monthly production expressed in cubic meters placed in the clay core of the Borinquen
Dam.

|
Figure 2 – Rainfall data and production correlation

By integrating this simple representation of weather data over project duration, the overall
production rates achieved in each season can be visually compared in the LSM. When actual
production was less than planned, the analyst can then access daily work report information to
ascertain whether the number of actual production resources (crews, equipment, etc.) equal to
the planned resources allocation determined to be adequate to maximize production in the dry
season. It also visualizes the relationship between weather and actual production to identify
production mismatches, i.e. high production during the rainy season or low production during
the dry season. The result is a concise record of whether the contractor’s resource allocation was
great enough to achieve its as-bid production rates or whether it induced a concurrent delay due
to inadequate production resources.
Accounting for Concurrent Geotechnical Weather and Quality Control Delays

An LSM-based, as-built schedule furnishes a wholistic view of project progress because its input
comes directly from daily production records. In the Borinquen Dam case, the input was not in
dispute because the owner agreed to use the contractor’s daily reports rather than its own. Thus,
the resultant picture includes the impact, if any, of multiple concurrent delays, making no
attempt to apportion them according to cause because it doesn’t need to. A complete, LSM-
based, as-built schedule is developed by correlating the supporting information for subsurface
conditions and weather with objective production records to demonstrate how the works where
built and the influence of such factors in a delay claim analysis. Additionally, quality management
program information can be overlaid on the as-built LSM to identify those timeframes and
locations where a third concurrent delay was experienced due to the failure of quality control
tests and the necessity of rework. The result is a single production picture displayed across the
dimensions of time and location.

Borinquen Dam Forensic Analysis Example

Taking advantage of LSM’s visual, two-dimensional schedule depiction, the entire project is
analyzed by displaying actual production data extracted from the contractor’s project daily work
reports. This data is then graphically compared to planned production rates and correlated with
its major influencing factors shown spatially along the axes of the LSM to objectively assess the
delay and its causes.

While initially programmed for a two-year schedule, the construction of the Borinquen Dam 1E
lasted more than 3 years, starting on May 2012 until the completion of its embankment on June
2015. The project experienced concurrent delays involving differing site conditions, poor
contractor production and quality control performance, and alleged weather delays. Hence, a
forensic tool that can analyze the events that occurred and the factors that influenced them that
could then compare the facts to the planned schedule and clearly allocate responsibilities was
needed to equitably resolve the dispute. The Panamá Canal Authority and its contractor agreed
to use LSM as the basis for sorting out the intricacies of the concurrent delay issues.

Developing the Forensic LSM Tool

More than 3,000 data points representing the progress of the foundation works and each lift of
core material placed in the dam were plotted using LSM. The horizontal axis on the resulting chart
represents the distance along the alignment of the dam in 100-meter stations, and the vertical
axis represents time in months. The Borinquen Dam delay analysis is shown in Figure 3 with the
following supporting information key:
- Blue boxes: pressured grout curtain construction below the dam.
- Red dots: Treatments and ground improvement (primarily superficial treatments)
along the foundation of the dam.
- Orange lines: Each lift of material placed in the core of the dam.
- Horizontal axis support information: Topographic profile
- Horizontal axis support information: Color-coded interpretation of the GBR.
- Vertical axis support information: Volume of core material placed on the dam in cubic
meters.
- Vertical axis support information: Marked actual rainfall data on the site.
- Yellow circles: Instrumentation locations in the core of the dam.
- Blue lines: Planned grouting sequence.
- Dotted red lines: Actual grouting sequence
 -

Figure 3 – Borinquen Dam Linear Schedule Delay analysis

Interpreting the Linear Schedule

The activities selected for visualization represent the critical path based on actual production and
drove the actual project completion date. The LSM format displays time as progressing upwards
in the chart with every activity on top of another as its direct successor. Each gap between the
activities displayed in Figure 3 represents a period of no production and the quantified result of
a delay to production. Each gap requires an explanation and comparison with the baseline
schedule to determine the causes for each delay in production and assignment of responsibility
for each cause. The supporting information shown on the LSM comes directly from the project’s
progress records, making it possible to develop a root-cause assessment that may otherwise not
be visually apparent. Furthermore, once responsibilities for each concurrent delay are
determined, they can then be explained in court if an agreement cannot be reached through
negotiation.

Figure 3 contains a huge amount of relevant information. Therefore, following sections will
extract specific fragments of the overall LSM graphic (termed insets in the text) and enlarge them
to better explain each separate type of delay. The interpretation of each inset is then specific to
one of the alleged concurrent delays, which can then be rolled up to assess the overall impact of
all the delays on the project’s final schedule.

LSM Interpretation – Differing Site Conditions

Looking at Figure 3, it is apparent that the blue rectangles, corresponding to the construction of
a pressure-grouted curtain wall below the foundation of the dam, represent a large proportion
of the project timeline. This activity is highly complex geotechnical work and was expected to be
a differing site condition risk. In simple terms, the pressure-grouting work is performed by drilling
holes in the ground and injecting a cement mixture until certain parameters are met to guarantee
the design intention of the subsurface wall. Initially, an original assumption is made regarding
the spacing between the holes. However, if the soil behaves poorly, this spacing is incrementally
narrowed until the design parameters are met, translating into more drilling, more grout, and
additional time to complete the work.

Considering the extensive geotechnical studies performed for the Borinquen Dam before works
started, this risk was known and was contemplated in the contract documents. Consequently,
the owner’s position was that the contractor should have accounted for the potential while
planning the project and developing the sequence of work. Figure 3 shows this not to be the case
with the approved schedule indicating the contractor starting the grouting operations on either
end of the dam and grouting toward the middle where the GBR showed the highest subsurface
risk. However, the contractor’s daily work reports show that it did not follow the approved
schedule. At some point, the contractor decided to begin grouting operations near station 1+800,
a point where a seismic fault zone was identified in the GBR and the differing site conditions risk
was greatest. While this was certainly prudent, it essentially disqualified the as-bid schedule as a
baseline for delay assessment because the actual work was not accomplished in the as-bid
sequence.

Hence, the owner’s position was that the area between stations 1+700 and 1+900 was the most
geologically complex based on the GBR contained in the contract documents, and that a prudent
contractor would have expected the area to require more resources and time for drilling and
injecting than the remainder of the alignment. Hence, while the owner did not dispute that
conditions materially differed with those shown in the GBR, they did contest the quantum
associated with the original claim is being excessive.

Quantifying the impact of the grouting delay was exacerbated by the iterative nature of the
pressure-grouting process, which in effect creates a long learning curve as the owner and
contractor iterate to achieve an understanding of the specific site characteristics and strive to
optimize grouting production rates. The combined effect of these factors represented a
significant delay in the project, by analyzing the forensic LSM and comparing it to the as-planned
schedule, it is evident that the decision to change the project sequence had an impact in the
project duration and demonstrates that the GBR was not adequately accounted for in the
scheduling effort, as the sequence and resource allocation did not correspond to the expected
site conditions. Figure 4 shows an inset from the LSM to illustrate the explained concept.

Figure 4 – As Planned vs As Built grouting sequence

The result of the analysis reduces the allowable compensation to the contractor due to the
differing site condition. Had the contractor not invalidated its own as-bid schedule, it might have
been able to justify a larger compensation for the delay due to the differing site condition. This
analysis leads to the conclusion that visualizing actual progress provides a mechanism to judge
the validity of the as-bid schedule. The result can be an advantage to either side. In this case, the
owner benefitted from the comparison. However, if the project records demonstrated that the
contractor had indeed proceeded in accordance with its as-bid schedule, it would have been the
beneficiary.

LSM Interpretation - Weather

As previously mentioned, weather conditions are a major consideration when planning and
estimating weather-sensitive projects like the Borinquen Dam in tropical countries like Panamá
where it rains for most of the year. Humidity and soil moisture conditions play a crucial role in
construction quality control for a clay-core dam, and heavy rainfall often translates into rework
and corrections, affecting the project schedule. Therefore, a prudent contractor would be
expected to factor in a certain amount of production loss into its as-bid schedule. Additionally,
the same contractor would be expected to plan on achieving the maximum production during
the dry season. The forensic analyst’s problem is to determine what reasonable levels of
sustained production are in both the rainy and dry seasons. This is done by correlating actual
rainfall data to the actual core-placement production. Before attempting to calculate specific
production rates, the analyst can first check observed productions in each season to determine
whether the actuals appear to be logical, i.e. observed production in rainy months is less than
observed production for the same activities in the dry months. The relative comparisons also
provide a baseline for determining if the contractor’s production was extraordinarily impacted
by rainfall or the works where performed in a way to optimize production in the dry seasons.

Figure 5 provides an illustrative example by extracting a section from Figure 3 for the period from
December 2013 to November 2014 between stations 0+400 and 2+200. The observed clay core
production in cubic meters and the actual monthly average precipitation in millimeters recorded
on the site are shown to the right side of the LSM inset. To facilitate better visualization of the
correlation, the monthly clay core production is color coded as described in a previous section
and the monthly rainfall is depicted as a histogram.
Figure 5 – Weather impact visualization in the linear schedule

Figure 3 shows that much of the grout curtain had been completed by March 2014, creating
sufficient space to increase the production of core material placement. However, Figure 5 shows
that that the production actually dropped in April, May and June 2014, leading the contractor to
attribute the reduction to the change from dry season to rainy season. An argument could be
made that the contractor’s proposal should have accounted for the seasonal change in
production due to weather conditions. However, the daily work reports used to populate Figures
3 and 5 revealed that the reason for the late initiation was the filter and drain construction
constraining the contractor’s ability to achieve the required production. This is confirmed by the
absence of production seen in the blank area during April, May, and June 2014 from station 0+600
to 1+100. Adding the precipitation data in visual form to the LSM in Figure 5 reveals that the
contractor achieved high production rates during the rainy season starting in July 2014, and
actually exceeded its dry season production in that year. Finally, historic precipitation data for
Panama City shows that rainfall amounts were below historical averages in every month except
May 2014. In that month, the actual precipitation was almost 50% greater than average, making
it the only month in which a case for a compensable delay due to unusually severe weather could
be justified. However, the daily reports showed that the construction of the filters and drains was
completed during that period and that the rain did not impact the clay core production because
the area was not available to work during that month. Hence, the contractor’s claim that its
production loss during 2014 was weather-related is effectively refuted.

Looking at the issue in another way, the Table 1 shows a simple illustrative extrapolation of the
project production if the referred self-inflicted drop in production would not have occurred. It
allows the analyst to determine that if steady production had been maintained from April to June
2014, the project would have been completed two months earlier.

LSM Interpretation – Contractor-induced Concurrent Quality Delays

The final example of concurrent delay visualization demonstrates LSMs ability to overlay quality
control information on the production chart to identify those periods in which delays are
contractor-induced. The specifications for Borinquen Dam included the installation of permanent
instrumentation along its body to anticipate and detect displacement, filtration, or other
changing parameters in its behavior during operation. The instrumentation plate installation
needed to be coordinated with the clay core construction at specified stations and heights. The
instruments to be installed required several months to be procured and shipped to Panama,
making it imperative that their installation be carefully coordinated with production to avoid an
impact. Figure 6 shows four blank spots within the core embankment production indicated by
the red circles. When compared with the construction documents, the blank spots are in the
exact locations where instrumentation was required and represent a disruption in the continuity
of the embankment works. The project records show that the instrumentation was not available
for installation when needed. Self-inflicted disruptions, like the failure to order the
instrumentation, impairs the contractor’s ability to claim that its planning and execution did not
impact the core embankment construction progress and that other factors were responsible for
it not being able to achieve its planned production rate. Finally, Figure 6 also shows the locations
and timing of quality control problems that necessarily interrupted production. These are shown
by the noncompliance report (NCR) notations seen in the figure. While less dramatic than the
production stoppages produced by the missing instrumentation packages, the NCRs serve to
bolster the owner’s position that even though there was a verifiable differing site condition and
one month of severe weather that the much of the delay in project completion was due to events
that were the sole responsibility of the contractor.

Figure 6 – Impact of quality noncompliance reports and instrumentation procurement delay

Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper has proposed a forensic schedule delay analysis method based on LSM. Its primary
contribution is to demonstrate the utility of LSM to simultaneously visualize concurrent delays
for differing site conditions, weather, quality control issues, and poor contractor production. It
has shown that LSM furnishes a means to overcome the issues encountered in the literature and
case law with CPM. LSM does so by providing a wholistic overview of the entire project using
actual project production data. It should be noted that the graphics provided in this paper were
output from a commercial software package that is currently in use by the construction industry.

The paper demonstrated the utility and the validity of the proposed forensic schedule analysis
approach by applying it to the Panamá Canal Expansion Program’s Borinquen Dam 1E project
using contractor daily work report production data. As a result, the following conclusions are
reached.
• LSM allows both parties to a given schedule dispute to jointly visualize and interpret
the same outcomes and use that output to resolve the dispute. This is an
improvement over current CPM-based techniques where the case law shows that it is
common for each party to use a different CPM analysis method.
• LSM permits the inclusion of multiple, concurrent delay-producing factors into a single
model and eliminates the need to apportion the overall delay among each concurrent
factor.
• LSM permits a direct, visual comparison of the as-built versus the as-planned
sequence of work, allowing both parties to literally see where the two diverge.

Perhaps one of the most valuable aspects of the use of LSM as a retrospective forensic delay
analysis tool is the dialog it will induce as both parties review the input data and agree on what
the various input values will be. In the case study, this was not an issue based on the owner’s
initial decision to use the contractor’s report data. Nevertheless, once the model output is
generated, the two parties are looking at the same depiction of the project’s outcome and the
factors that influenced it. This aspect alone would seem to be a mechanism that would promote
the resolution of schedule disputes without the need to resort to the courts.
References

[1] D. Marchman, Construction Scheduling with Primavera Project Planner, Albany, NY: Delmar
Publishers, 1997.
[2] M. Guévremont and A. Hammad, "Visualization of Delay Claim Analysis Using 4D
Simulation.," ASCE J. Leg. Aff. Dis. Res.Eng.Constr, vol. 10, no. 3, 2018.
[3] W. E. Franczek and P. M. K., "Clearing the Smoke: Forensic Schedule Analysis Method
Selection for Construction Attorneys," The Construction Lawyer,, pp. 33-30, 2013.
[4] R. Tapia and D. Gransberg, "Forensic Linear Scheduling for Delay Claim Analysis: Panamá
Canal Borinquen Dam 1E Case Study," in Compendium, 2016 Trans. Res.Bd, Washington,
D.C., 2016.
[5] D. Hulett, Practical Schedule Risk Analysis., London, U.K.: Routledge, 2016.
[6] J. M. Garza and K. K., "Critical Path Method to Multiple Calendars and Progressed
Schedules," ASCE J. Const. Eng. Mangt, vol. 134, no. 1, 2008.
[7] D. Harmelink, "Linear Scheduling Model: The Development of a Linear Scheduling Model
with Micro Computer Applications for Highway Construction Project Control.," Ph.D. Thesis,
Iowa State University., 1995.
[8] J. Lee, "Delay analysis using linear schedule in construction," in Transactions, AACE Intl,
Nashville, Tennessee, 2007.
[9] V. Bansal and M. Pal, "Generating, Evaluating, and Visualizing Construction Schedule with
Geographic Information Systems," ASCE J. Computing in Civil Eng., vol. 22, no. 4, 2008.
[10] I. a. O. J. Yuksel, "Schedule Compression af An Urban Highway Project Using the Linear
Scheduling Method.," Center for Transportation Research, Bureau of Engineering Research,
University of Texas at Austin, , Austin, Texas, 2000.
[11] K. Shrestha, D. Jeong and D. Gransberg, "Current Practices of Collecting and Utilizing Daily
Work Report Data and Areas for Improvements," in Proceedings, 6th Intl. Conf. Const. Eng.
and Proj. Man., Busan, Korea, 2015.
[12] R. Tapia, D. Gransberg and A. Touran, "Managing Scheduling Risk Due to Geotechnical
Uncertainty Using Linear Scheduling," in Compendium, 2017 Trans. Res.Bd, Washington,
D.C., 2017.
[13] K. P. Hoshino, J. Livengood and C. Carson, "RP 29R-03 forensic schedule analysis.," AACE
International, Morgantown, WV, 2011.
[14] G. A. Duffy, G. Oberlender and J. S., "Linear Scheduling Model with Varying Production
Rates," ASCE J. Const.Eng.Mangt, vol. 137, no. 8, 2010.
[15] C. Lopez del Puerto and D. Gransberg, "Fundamentals of Linear Scheduling for Cost
Engineers," in Transactions AACE, Intl, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
View publication stats

[16] Long International, "Long International Corporate Brochure," [Online]. Available:

http://www.long-intl.com/brochures/Long_Intl_Corporate_Brochure.pdf. [Accessed 12
September 2017].
[17] C. Lopez del Puerto, D. Gransberg and M. Loulakis, "Contractual Approaches to Address
Geotechnical Uncertainty in Design-Build Projects," ASCE J. Leg. Aff. Dis. Res.Eng.Constr,,
vol. 9, no. 1, 2016.
[18] D. Gransberg and G. Gad, "Geotechnical Requirements in the Design–Build Selection
Process.," Transportation Research Record, vol. 2408, no. 1, pp. 26-33, 2014.
[19] E. Dwyre, Z. Batchko and R.J. Castelli, "Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Foundation
Projects," Proceedings, GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP
199), pp. 1-10, 2010.