JCA have been commissioned by the Department of Housing and Works to take over the project planning consulting duties for the +$330m Perth Arena project, reporting to the Superintendant’s Representative.

With the project now well underway, JCA’s role will be three fold:
1 - Investigate scheduling to date, and report on progress since commencement.
2 - Independantly carry out regular status inspections and report on progress in tandem with the contractor’s reporting regime.
3 - Independantly carry out Forensic analysis of current and future Extension of time claims.

JCA is currently in the early stages of the initial consultation process, and looks forward to it’s nominated lead Planning and Forensic consultants becoming an integral part of the project.

A technical issue that the JCA Forensic team is often asked to consider is, “What is the most appropriate methodology to adopt when analysing a delay to a project”.

This is NOT an easy question to answer, and will depend on a number of factors.

However one very imporatant factor in selecting one of the main methodologies (ie impacted-as-planned, or Collapsed-as-built, or as-planned v as-built, or time-impact, etc) is the form of contract used on the project between principal and contractor.

ie some forms of contract provide the contractor entitlment to relief from delay (EOT) only where the contractor can prove actual delay to completion. Whereas other forms allow for relief for the “likely effect of a delay risk event”.

JCA would normally consult with their clients legal team (where available) to assess the relevant form of contract before finalising a delay analysis methodology.

Other matters to consider prior to deciding on a methodology, include:

Factual material available
Nature of proof required
Complexity of the delay event(s)
Quantum of Delay events