Dynamic Disruption and Delay Analysis (D3A)
Disruption typically accounts for a large fraction of project costs, yet recovering much of it has historically proven to be difficult: traditional methods do not establish causality, are unable to separate the impacts of different events, and their accuracy is untestable.
Delay claims are currently plagued by concurrency issues, mostly reflect just a fraction of the actual delaying events, and completely miss the delaying impact of rework.
Dynamic Disruption and Delay Analysis (D3A) radically changes this playing field, providing our clients with the evidence they need to fully support their claims, both during the course of negotiations and in legal disputes (litigation, arbitration).
D3A allows us to significantly improve our clients’ recovery rates on disruption and delay costs on large construction projects:
- Our fact-based approach includes all types of disruptive events, from simple variations to more complex changes (for example, non-contractual applications of commenting and approval processes).
- D3A takes into account all significant change events, irrespective of the party responsible for causing them. This allows D3A to evade the ‘total claim’ trap, and to account for “self-inflicted” damages.
- D3A specifically accounts for the disruption caused by every disruptive event, quantifying it and establishing a clear causal narrative that describes how the disruption came about.
- D3A is based upon the scientific method: our simulation models are checked against all the relevant information about the project, and are refined until they are fully consistent with all the available information within appropriate confidence levels.
D3A delivers the most compelling and undisputable evidence to substantiate disruption and delay claims.
The cornerstone of our approach is a simulation model that fits your project. Built upon a causal framework that has proven its validity over the course of the past four decades, the base model is tailored to reflect the particular characteristics of your project (budgets, schedules, disruptive events, staffing practices, etc.), and calibrated to independently reproduce its ‘as-built’ performance.
The disruption caused by change events is then determined by running additional simulations in which said events are excluded – the ‘but-for’ scenarios.
Tuxedo Park is a recent $1bn design-bid-build development in the MENA region, that overran its budget by $300 million and finished over 2.5 years late.
The Contractor’s performance had been significantly hampered by a deficient design, and by the Employer’s insistence that the Contractor’s own engineering team correct and complete said design… but without providing the necessary guidelines to do so effectively, and repeatedly changing his mind about preferred design options.
The Contractor was convinced that the Employer’s actions had been massively disruptive, yet conventional analysis methods and the existing data trail could not be used effectively to support this view.
Yet, a forensic dynamic analysis established (and was able to prove) that 60% of the labour overrun had been caused by the Employer.
In international arbitration, a highly qualified and experienced tribunal decided that the evidence produced by our analysis was credible and defensible, and awarded the Contractor full recovery of the Employer-risk disruption (i.e., the entire 60% of the overrun.)