Time in Focus: The Strategic Application of Impacted As-Planned Method of Delay Analysis in Construction Dispute Resolution

Effective delay analysis is paramount in construction and project management to understand the impacts of unforeseen setbacks on project schedules. Delay analysis serves as a vital tool for resolving disputes among project stakeholders, such as contractors, owners, subcontractors, etc. It helps to establish accountability and liability for delays by providing an objective and systematic assessment of the causes and impact of delays. Delay analysis enables parties to determine whether delays were excusable or non-excusable, whether they resulted from unforeseeable circumstances or were within the control of the responsible party. It also assists in evaluating the extent of delay-related damages, facilitating fair and equitable settlements or, if necessary, serving as evidence in legal proceedings. In essence, delay analysis serves as a key component in achieving a transparent and fact-based resolution of disputes, saving time and resources while promoting fair and just outcomes for all parties involved in construction projects. There are a few methods suggested by SCL-UK Delay and Disruption Protocol 2017 and AACE 29R-03 Protocol for performing delay analysis (such as Impacted As-Planned (IAP) method, Time Impact Analysis, As-planned v. As-built analysis, collapse as built analysis, etc.). This paper delves into the ‘IAP’ method (also known as MIP 3.6, Ref. AACE 29R-03), a powerful technique that offers a comprehensive perspective on delay effects within project timelines. The paper commences by interpreting the background and methodology of the ‘Impacted As-Planned (IAP)/MIP-3.6’ approach, detailing its uniqueness in comparison to other delay analysis techniques. By outlining the step-by-step process, the paper throws light on the calculations and considerations that underpin the method. It then examines the advantages, legal validity, highlighting the method’s ability to accurately illustrate project progression amid delays and complexities. Conversely, the paper examines potential limitations and challenges, shedding light on scenarios where the method might warrant careful interpretation. Real-world case studies further augment the paper’s insights, showcasing instances where the ‘IAP’ method can be successfully applied to make project decisions. The paper also discusses the practical implementation considerations, limitations of IAP, encompassing data requirements, software tools, and best practices for a reliable analysis.