Clear presentation when demonstrating a fact in construction dispute proceedings is essential. It can dictate the outcome of a dispute and applies equally to claim submissions and any independent testimony required in Court, Arbitration or other formal proceedings.
Because of the complexities arising in delay analysis and its terminology, it is often characterised as a “dark art”. A simple presentation of a sound methodology arriving at clear and persuasive conclusions, goes a long way to demystify this so called “dark art”.
The nature of the construction project and the details of the dispute usually dictate the most appropriate delay analysis method to be applied.
Here, two fundamental scheduling methods are examined for their application to projects of a “linear” nature (such as roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.):
- The Critical Path Method (“CPM”); and
- The Linear Scheduling Method (“LSM”).
CPM is a scheduling method that is more widely used for construction programme development and management.
However, for linear projects, the lesser known LSM is a more informative approach. This methodology uses graphical representation in a two-dimensional (2D) diagram within time and location axes.
In this article I review the potential and benefits of LSM graphs for the purposes of forensic delay analysis of linear construction projects. A hypothetical case study is used to demonstrate how as-built information can be incorporated into the LSM graphic to demonstrate the various project parameters, the actual progress of works, and the cause and effect of delay events.
If you require any further information, please contact Dimitrios Tousiakis at dimitriostousiakis@hka.com.
Originally published in ‘Tunnels and Tunnelling’, the official magazine of the British Tunnelling Society – June 2021 Internation Edition.
