You are retained by a contractor who asks you to perform a simple as-planned versus as-built analysis (APAB) of a large hydro-electric dam project…

A simple As-Planned vs. As-Built (APAB) analysis is a static, observational method that compares the planned schedule with the final as-built record. It does not involve modeling or inserting delay events into the as-planned schedule to determine their impact. The action described—inserting delaying events into a schedule—is characteristic of a more sophisticated, dynamic analysis methodology, such as a Time Impact Analysis (TIA) or a modeled analysis. Therefore, this statement does not apply to a simple APAB.

A. APAB is ill-suited for complex projects because it cannot effectively model or explain shifts in the critical path.
C. On long projects, the original as-planned schedule becomes outdated and an unrealistic baseline for comparison, reducing the validity of an APAB.
D. The APAB method's accuracy diminishes over time as the project deviates further from the original plan, making causation difficult to establish.

1. AACE International

Recommended Practice No. 29R-03

Forensic Schedule Analysis

(Rev. April 25

2011)

Section 3.2. This RP describes the APAB method as a static comparison and contrasts it with dynamic

modeled methods (like TIA) where delays are inserted into a network model.

2. Winter

R. M. (2017). AACE International's Professional Practice Guide to Forensic Scheduling. AACE International. Chapter 5 discusses various delay analysis methods

clearly distinguishing the simple comparative nature of APAB from the simulative approach of a TIA.

3. Keane

P. J.

& Caletka

A. F. (2015). Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts (5th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. Chapter 11 outlines the limitations of simplistic "as-planned vs. as-built" methods in complex scenarios.