PS.1691 Calculating The As-Built Critical Path: Andrew Avalon, PE PSP

2014 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL PAPER
PS.1691
Calculating the As-Built Critical Path

Andrew Avalon, PE PSP
Abstract—The as-built critical path of a project schedule can be determined by developing As-
Built Calculation Schedules for each relevant schedule analysis period. An As-Built Calculation
Schedule removes verified actual dates from the schedule and revises the activity and lag
durations to be equal to the actual durations. The creation of the As-Built Calculation Schedule
enables the CPM scheduling software to then calculate the as-built critical path. To properly
create an As-Built Calculation Schedule, it is necessary to determine the driving predecessor
relationships in the as-built schedule when there are multiple predecessors to an activity. If a
predecessor is not driving, the actual lag duration should be reduced to the originally planned
lag value to create float in the As-Built Calculation Schedule. If the determination of driving
predecessor relationships is not performed, all activities in the As-Built Calculation Schedule
would have zero total float and would be equally critical. This paper presents procedures to
ensure that the as-built driving lag values are determined objectively to avoid inconsistent or
subjective assessments in calculating the as-built critical path.
PS.1691.1
Copyright © AACE® International.
This paper may not be reproduced or republished without expressed written consent from AACE® International
Table of Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 1
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 2
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 2
List of Equations .......................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
Verifying the Accuracy of the As-Built Schedule ......................................................................... 3
Converting As-Planned Logic to As-Built Logic ........................................................................... 3
Creating an As-Built Calculation Schedule for Each Schedule Analysis Window ........................ 9
The Destatusing Procedure ......................................................................................................... 12
Driving Predecessor Lag Determinations .................................................................................... 14
Calculating As-Built Critical Paths and Reviewing for Reasonableness ...................................... 17
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 18
References ................................................................................................................................... 18
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Out-of-Sequence Logic Correction: Guideline No. 1 .................................................. 4

Figure 6 – As-Built Calculation Schedule Creation: Step 1 .......................................................... 10
Figure 9 – Activity Status Conditions for Destatusing Procedure ............................................... 12
List of Tables
Table 1 – Actual Date Conditions and Corresponding Actions for Destatusing ......................... 13
Schedule Activities
Table 2 – Sample Driving Lag Calculations .................................................................................. 16
List of Equations
Equation 1 – Finish-to-Start Lag Duration ................................................................................... 14

Equation 2 – Start-to-Start Lag Duration .................................................................................... 14
Equation 3 – Finish-to-Finish Lag Duration ................................................................................. 14
Equation 4 – Start-to-Finish Lag Duration ................................................................................... 14
PS.1691.2
Introduction
The determination of the as-built critical path of a project is of great importance for the analysis
of schedule delay claims. It is commonly accepted by scheduling practitioners that the critical
path of a project is dynamic and may change over time such that the as-built critical path may
be different from the as-planned critical path. Many contracts require that the Contractor
demonstrate that the claimed delay events impacted the project completion date, which is
driven by the as-built critical path or longest path to completion. The calculation of the as-built
critical path is also essential for performing collapsed as-built or but-for schedule analyses as
described in AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 on Forensic Schedule
Analysis, Method Implementation Protocols 3.8 and 3.9, for modeled, subtractive delay
analyses. However, as acknowledged in RP No. 29R-03, Subsection 4.3.C, there presently is no
consensus among practitioners regarding a common set of logic rules for accurately
determining the as-built critical path because actual dates override float values. This paper
presents proposed guidelines for calculating the as-built critical path.
Verifying the Accuracy of the As-Built Schedule
The calculation of the as-built critical path requires that an accurate as-built schedule first be
developed. To verify the reliability of the as-built schedule, contemporaneous project records
should be reviewed to confirm the accuracy of the actual dates. Any necessary corrections to
actual dates and progress percent complete values should be documented based on
contemporaneous project data such as daily reports, monthly progress reports, meeting
minutes, payment applications, drawing logs, submittal logs, superintendent logs, and progress
photographs. Source Validation Protocols 2.2 and 2.3 of AACE International Recommended
Practice No. 29R-03 on Forensic Schedule Analysis provide procedures for utilizing as-built
schedule source documentation to reconstruct, validate, and rectify as-built schedules and
schedule updates.
Converting As-Planned Logic to As-Built Logic
After the as-built schedule dates are validated and rectified, it is necessary to review the
reasonableness of the as-built schedule logic. Work activities may have been performed out-of-
sequence from the as-planned logic. Method Implementation Protocol 3.8.K.2 of AACE
International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 on Forensic Schedule Analysis provides
procedures for converting as-planned logic to as-built logic. In some cases, the actual sequence
of work and the relationships between activities may be different from the planned sequence
of work and activity relationships. Therefore, the logic relationships between the activities in
the as-built schedule at the end of each window may be different from the planned logic
relationships at the start of the window. Accordingly, if the actual sequence of work indicates
that different logic relationships between activities are warranted, the schedule logic should be
adjusted to represent the as-built conditions and the logic revisions should be documented.
PS.1691.3
Activities that have out-of-sequence logic with long negative lag values that were completed or
were in-progress within each schedule analysis window should be identified. Guidelines for
correcting out-of-sequence logic with long negative lags are detailed in the following
paragraphs.
Often large negative lag relationships may exist in the as-built schedule that stem from the as-
planned schedule logic. To more accurately model the actual work sequences in each schedule
analysis window, adjustments should be made to the as-built schedule logic to replace out-of-
sequence logic and large negative lag values (e.g., greater than 15 work days) with more
reasonable logic ties. While the Contractor’s original logic should be utilized wherever possible,
the following guidelines are recommended when analyzing and rectifying out-of-sequence logic
resulting from the as-built date conditions.
Guideline 1: If the as-built date conditions produced a long negative Finish-to-Start (FS)
relationship, where practical, change the long negative FS relationship to a short positive Start-
to-Start (SS) relationship, as shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1 — Out-of-Sequence Logic Correction: Guideline No. 1
PS.1691.4
Guideline 2: If the as-built date conditions produced a long negative FS relationship and
Guideline No. 1 would produce a negative SS relationship, where practical, change the long
negative FS relationship to a short positive Finish-to-Finish (FF) relationship, as shown below in
Figure 2.
Guideline 3: If the as-built date conditions produced a long SS relationship and the as-built
conditions allow for a reasonable and shorter FS relationship, then, where practical, change the
long SS relationship to a short FS relationship. For example, a SS +35 day relationship between
two activities in the as-built condition could be changed to a FS +10 day relationship between
the same predecessor and successor activities, as shown below in Figure 3, Example A. In other
cases, a short negative FS lag may be more realistic for modeling actual work sequences than a
long SS lag, as shown below in Figure 3, Example B.
PS.1691.5
Guideline 4: If the as-built date conditions produced a long FF relationship and allow for a
reasonable FS tie, then, where practical, change the FF relationship to a FS relationship. For
example, a FF +55 day relationship between two activities in the as-built condition could be
changed to a FS +10 day relationship between the same predecessor and successor activities, as
shown below in Figure 4, Example A. If the as-built conditions would produce a long negative FS
relationship, for which the absolute value of the lag duration is greater than the positive FF lag
value, then the existing FF relationship should be retained, as shown below in Figure 4, Example
B.
PS.1691.6
Guideline 5. If the work activities were performed significantly out-of-sequence and the as-built
date conditions do not allow for a reasonable FS, SS, and/or FF tie, then remove the
inappropriate predecessor logic and replace the relationship with a different, more reasonable
predecessor activity relationship. To select a more reasonable predecessor activity to replace
the inappropriate predecessor, where practical, trace the network logic preceding the
inappropriate predecessor to identify a more appropriate predecessor earlier in the logic chain
and then reapply Guidelines 1 through 4 to determine the appropriate logic tie.
PS.1691.7
When converting the as-planned logic to the as-built logic, it is generally preferred to select
logic relationships with shorter lag durations rather than longer lag durations, based on a
comparison of the absolute values of the lag durations. Furthermore, physical work flow
restraints driving the actual design, procurement, construction, and commissioning activity
sequences should govern the rectification of the as-built logic. The purpose of the as-built logic
rectification is to realistically model the work sequence relationships for how the project was
actually built.
When making the above as-built logic adjustments, it is necessary to identify and correct any
open-ends created while correcting the out-of-sequence logic. The logic should be checked in
the As-Built Calculation Schedule to ensure that no activities have open-ends. If new open-ends
are identified, appropriate logic ties should be added to close the open-ends.
PS.1691.8
Finally, if Primavera or similar software is used to develop the as-built schedule and the
Progress Override calculation mode is utilized, it may be necessary to identify and correct the
logic for any activities with effective open-ends due to Progress Override. The Progress
Override calculation mode ignores logic relationships and allows an activity with progress to
continue even if its predecessors have not finished. Based on the as built dates and calculated
progress spanning a schedule window data date, some task activities may have effective open-
ends due to the Progress Override schedule calculation setting. When schedule activities are
worked out-of-sequence, the Progress Override feature nullifies the predecessor-to-successor
logic for activities that started out-of-sequence, and then allows the late finish dates for these
activities to slip to the completion date of the latest finishing activity for the project. This
condition is not realistic or reasonable and the resulting late dates and corresponding float
values are incorrect. Therefore, activities with effective open-ends due to the Progress Override
calculation mode for each analysis window should be identified and appropriate logic
adjustments should be made to eliminate the open-ends.
The specific logic modifications performed to correct any out-of-sequence logic or to close
effective open-ends in each schedule analysis window should be documented in conjunction
with rectifying the as-built logic. Any assumptions made and procedures followed while
correcting the as-built logic should be documented to ensure consistency and avoid subjectivity
during the rectification process.
Creating an As-Built Calculation Schedule for Each Schedule Analysis Window
After verifying the accuracy of the as-built schedule dates and correcting any out-of-sequence
as-built logic ties, an As-Built Calculation Schedule can be developed for each schedule analysis
window. A windows-based analysis is often preferred over a single analysis of the entire project
duration to better account for how the critical path changed over time. The purpose of the As-
Built Calculation Schedule is to calculate the as-built critical and near-critical paths and as-built
float values. The selection of the schedule analysis windows is typically based on the availability
of the schedule updates, key contractual events and issues, changes in the critical path, and
cost and time considerations.
In commonly used scheduling software, such as Primavera, actual dates override the schedule
logic and the actual start and finish dates of activities become fixed regardless of the logic when
actual dates are input to record as-built progress. Therefore, the as-built critical path and float
values, which can only be determined from the schedule logic, are not provided by the software
calculations for the work that was performed prior to the data date. The critical path and float
values are only determined for work yet to be performed after the data date.
To create an As-Built Calculation Schedule, it is necessary to destatus the as-built schedule by

removing the actual dates from the activities in progress during the schedule analysis window
and inputting actual activity and lag durations and progress percent complete values. The start
and finish dates in an As-Built Calculation Schedule are driven by as-built schedule logic, as-built
PS.1691.9
activity durations, and as-built percent complete values for the activities in each schedule
analysis window. The as-built logic, driving lag values, actual durations, and percent complete
values are input into the As-Built Calculation Schedule such that they generate the same early
start and early finish dates for activities as they actually started and finished during each
window. The As-Built Calculation Schedule also calculates the same forecasted start and finish
dates for activities beyond the end of the schedule analysis window.
Figures 6, 7, and 8 below summarize three basic steps for creating an As-Built Calculation
Schedule. In Figure 6, Step 1 involves the identification of the as-built dates for the activities
within the schedule analysis window.
Figure 6 — As-Built Calculation Schedule Creation: Step 1
In Figure 7, Step 2 involves the calculation of the as-built activity and lag durations for the
activities within the schedule analysis window.
PS.1691.10
In Figure 8, Step 3, the actual dates are removed and the actual activity and lag durations and
percent complete values are input into the schedule such that the scheduling software
calculates the start and finish dates of the activities to be the same as the as-built start and
finish dates. The removal of the actual dates is referred to as destatusing the schedule.
PS.1691.11
The Destatusing Procedure
The schedule is destatused by moving the data date in the As-Built Calculation Schedule from
the end of the schedule analysis window to the beginning of the schedule analysis window.
Figure 9 below presents the potential activity date condition, where the schedule being
analyzed contains unfinished activities and the analysis period begins later than the Project
Start date.
Figure 9 — Activity Status Conditions for Destatusing Procedure
The actual date conditions and corresponding actions for destatusing schedule activities
occurring within each schedule analysis window are summarized in Table 1 below.
PS.1691.12
Activity ID Actual Date Conditions Actions

Activity A The Actual Start and Actual Finish Do nothing.
dates are before the beginning of the
schedule analysis window.
Activity B The Actual Start and Actual Finish Remove the Actual Start and Actual
dates occur within the schedule Finish, make the Original Duration
analysis window. equal to Actual Duration, and make
Percent Complete equal to zero.
Activity C The Early Start and Early Finish dates Do nothing.
are forecast after the schedule
analysis window.
Activity D The Actual Start date is before the Remove the Actual Finish and compute
schedule analysis window and the the Remaining Duration and Percent
Actual Finish date is within the Complete from the new destatused
schedule analysis window. data date to the old Actual Finish date.
Activity E The Actual Start date is within the Remove the Actual Start, make the
schedule analysis window and the Original Duration equal to Actual
Early Finish date is forecast after the Duration plus Remaining Duration, and
schedule analysis window. make Percent Complete equal to zero.
Activity F The Actual Start date is before the Compute the Remaining Duration and
schedule analysis window and the Percent Complete from the new
Early Finish date is forecast after the destatused data date to the old Early
schedule analysis window. Finish date.
Table 1 — Actual Date Conditions and Corresponding Actions for Destatusing Schedule
Activities
All actual dates prior to the destatused data date are not changed and this portion of the
schedule remains statused with actual dates. All forecast dates after the end-of-window data
date also remained unchanged.
As noted in Table 1, the percent complete and remaining duration values need to be computed
for activities having the date conditions of Activities D and F. Source Validation Protocol
2.3.D.1.a of AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 on Forensic Schedule
Analysis discusses the “hindsight” method for calculating remaining durations based on actual
dates and durations. The computed percent complete and remaining duration values should be
input into the As-Built Calculation Schedule to maintain the as-built schedule activity start and
finish dates.
At this point in the development of the As-Built Calculation Schedule, the original and
remaining durations of all activities are correctly adjusted but the lag durations for each
relationship have not yet been adjusted to maintain the as-built schedule activity start and
finish dates. The early dates of the activities that have been converted from actual dates should
match the as-built schedule dates. The goal is to quantify the lag durations required to drive the
PS.1691.13
original as-built schedule dates and model this in the As-Built Calculation Schedule. Each
predecessor relationship must be reviewed for each activity that used to have an actual date
but no longer does.
It is then necessary to compute the actual lag duration by converting the beginning date for the
lag into a workday number and the ending date for that lag into a second workday number and
subtracting the two workday values. The following formulas summarize the actual lag duration
calculations:
Finish-to-Start Lag Duration = Successor Start Date - Predecessor Finish Date - 1 day
Equation 1
Start-to-Start Lag Duration = Successor Start Date - Predecessor Start Date

Equation 2
Finish-to-Finish Lag Duration = Successor Finish Date - Predecessor Finish Date

Equation 3
Start-to-Finish Lag Duration = Successor Finish Date - Predecessor Start Date + 1 day
Equation 4
If using Primavera scheduling software calendar rules, the Activity Calendar for the predecessor
activity should be used in performing the conversion of an activity date to a workday number.
If the activity date is an Actual Start and falls on a non-workday, then the next higher workday is
used. If the activity date is an Actual Finish and the date falls on a non-workday, then the next
lower workday is used. The calculated actual lag durations are then input into the As-Built
Calculation Schedule.
After performing the actions in Table 1, the resulting As-Built Calculation Schedule will have a
new data date at the beginning of the schedule analysis window and the calculated start and
finish dates of each activity within the analysis period will be adjusted to match the actual
conditions shown in the as-built schedule.
Driving Predecessor Lag Determinations
To properly create an As-Built Calculation Schedule, it is necessary to determine the driving

predecessor relationships in the as-built schedule when there are multiple predecessors to an
activity. If a predecessor is not driving, the actual lag duration should be reduced to the
originally planned lag value to create float in the As-Built Calculation Schedule.
The actual lag duration for each relationship within the schedule analysis window should be
calculated but it is not necessary to apply all of the actual lags to all relationships in the As-Built
Calculation Schedule. If all lags in the As-Built Calculation Schedule are converted into the
PS.1691.14
actual lags, the activity dates in the As-Built Calculation Schedule would be correct but all
activities would have zero Total Float and the entire schedule network would be on the as-built
critical path.
To determine the “driving” relationship, the shortest duration variance between the planned
lag and the actual lag for each predecessor to a successor should be calculated. In other words,
it is necessary to identify the predecessor tie that most probably caused the successor activity
to start or finish based on the “closest” predecessor to the successor activity with consideration
for planned lag durations. If the variance between the planned lag and the actual lag is
negative, then the relationship must become a driving relationship to maintain the correct as-
built dates in the As-Built Calculation Schedule. If multiple relationships have the equally
shortest variance between the planned (Contractor defined) lag and the actual lag, then all
relationships with the equally shortest variance are designated as driving relationships.
The actual lag should only be input for driving relationships and the non-driving lag durations
should be left as originally input in the Contractor’s plan. To ensure that the As-Built Calculation
Schedule driving lag values are determined objectively, and to avoid inconsistent or subjective
assessments in developing the as-built critical path, the following procedure is used:
1) When there are multiple predecessor activities to a successor activity, the predecessor with
the smallest variance between the actual lag and the planned lag is used as the driving
predecessor and all other positive lags for predecessors to the same successor are reset to
the planned lag value contained in the verified as-built schedule. The planned lag typically is
the lag value input contemporaneously by the project scheduler, or may be a lag duration
that has been rectified by the schedule analyst based on documented facts regarding the
reasonable lag duration required between two activities.
2) If a successor activity has only one predecessor, then the actual lag value must be used as
the driving lag value to correctly calculate the successor activity dates to correspond with
the verified as-built schedule dates.
3) If two or more predecessors to an activity are equally driving, meaning that they have equal
variances between the actual lag and planned lag, then each predecessor should be
assigned the required driving lag values such that they equally drive the successor activity
dates.
4) All actual negative lags must remain negative to retain the original dates in the verified as-
built schedule.
5) If a predecessor is not driving, then the actual lag duration should be reduced to the
planned lag value in the verified as-built schedule to create float in the As-Built Calculation
Schedule.
PS.1691.15
Table 2 below presents examples of driving lag duration calculations. Note that the smallest
value in the variance column for a group of predecessors determines which relationship is
driving. Negative variances are treated as being smaller or shorter than positive variances. Rows
in Table 2 are shaded in yellow for successor activities with multiple predecessors.
Succ Pred Planned Calculated Driving
Activity Activity Rel Lag Actual Lag Variance Lag Comment
140100 230100 FS 5 14 9 14 Use actual lag because only one
predecessor.
140200 230300 FS 10 4 -6 4 FS 4 is driving because it is
shorter than FS 13 for 240200.
Also note that -6 variance is less
than 3.
140200 240200 FS 10 13 3 10 FS 13 is not driving and is
reduced to planned FS 10 to
create 3 days of float.
predecessor.
150102 150100 FS 0 -3 -3 -3 Use actual lag because only one
predecessor and lag is negative.
150200 110602 SS 0 23 23 23 SS 23 is driving because it is
shorter than FF 29 for 110602.
Also note that 23 variance is less
than 29.
150200 110602 FF 0 29 29 0 FF 29 is not driving and is
reduced to planned FF 0 to
create 29 days of float.
150300 150200 SS 5 0 -5 0 Use actual lag because only one
predecessor.
150302 150300 SS 10 4 -6 4 SS 4 is driving because -6
variance is equal to FS 2 for
150400.
150302 150400 FS 8 2 -6 2 FS 2 is driving because -6
variance is equal to SS 4 for
150300.
150400 150300 SS 21 30 9 30 Use actual lag because only one
predecessor.
predecessor.
150502 150302 SS 10 4 -6 4 SS 4 is driving because it is
shorter than SS 18 and FF 17.
Also note that -6 variance is less
than 13 and 17.
150502 150400 SS 5 18 13 5 SS is not driving and is reduced
to planned SS 5 to create 13 days
of float.
150502 150500 FF 0 17 17 0 FF is not driving and is reduced
to planned FF 0 to create 17 days
of float.
Table 2 — Sample Driving Lag Calculations
PS.1691.16
In summary, when there are multiple predecessor activities to a successor activity, the
predecessor with the smallest variance between the actual lag and the planned lag should be
used as the driving predecessor and all other positive lags for predecessors to the same
successor are reset to the planned lag duration. All actual negative lags must remain negative
to retain the original dates in the original schedule.
If two or more predecessors to an activity are equally driving, meaning that they have equal
variances between the actual lag and planned lag, then assign the required lag durations to
each predecessor such that they equally drive the successor activity dates. If a predecessor is
not driving, reduce the actual lag duration to the planned lag value to create float in the As-
Built Calculation Schedule.
Calculating As-Built Critical Paths and Near-Critical Paths and Reviewing for Reasonableness
After the driving predecessor relationships are determined and input into the As-Built
Calculation Schedule, the schedule is recalculated to determine the float values and as-built
critical and near-critical paths for activities that were completed or were in-progress during the
window.
To ensure that the As-Built Calculation Schedule was developed properly, a variance analysis
should be performed for all activities by comparing the start and finish dates in the As-Built
Calculation Schedule to the verified as-built schedule to ensure that there are no date
variances. If date variances are found when performing this comparison, it is necessary to
identify the date inconsistencies and document the reasons for any acceptable variances. Date
variances may arise from activities having different calendars or when the as-built date falls on
a non-work day as defined by the schedule calendar.
Finally, the calculated critical and near critical paths from the data date at the start of the
window through Project Completion should be checked for reasonableness. Subsection 4.3.C of
AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 on Forensic Schedule Analysis discusses
questions to consider regarding whether activities on the as-built critical path are reasonable,
including:
 Was the work critical on any schedule updates?

 Was the work perceived to be critical by project personnel contemporaneously as
documented in letters, meeting minutes, etc.?
 Was the work qualitatively significant to the overall project outcome based on cost as
well as the analyst’s judgment and experience?
 Were there resource restraints not evident in the logic?
 Was the work performed piecemeal or from start to finish without interruption?
 Did the work drive other subsequent apparently critical work?
PS.1691.17
Finally, if a delay to any as-built activity would have delayed the overall project completion date
by that same duration, it is reasonable to conclude that the activity was on the as-built
critical path.
Conclusion
Calculating the as-built critical path involves: 1) verifying the accuracy of the as-built schedule
dates, 2) converting as-planned logic to as-built logic, 3) creating an As-Built Calculation
Schedule for each schedule analysis window, 4) destatusing the actual dates and replacing them
with actual activity and lag durations and percent complete values, 5) determining the driving
predecessor relationships, 6) calculating the as-built critical and near-critical paths, and
7) reviewing the calculated as-built critical path for reasonableness. The above steps are
performed prior to any delay analysis and should be performed in a consistent manner. Any
assumptions should be documented to minimize subjectivity. The schedule analyst’s judgment
and experience, however, will always be necessary to ensure the reasonableness of the as-built
critical path calculations.
References
1. Hoshino, Kenji P., 2002 Slide presentation (No paper published), Catching the Elusive As-
Built Critical Path, 2002 AACE International Transactions, AACE International, Morgantown,
WV
2. Winter, Ronald M., 2004, PS.02—Determining the Actual Critical Path, 2004 AACE
International Transactions, AACE International, Morgantown, WV
3. Nagata PSP, Mark F., 2010, CDR.02—Which Critical Path: As-Planned, Contemporaneous, or
As-Built?, 2010 AACE International Transactions, AACE International, Morgantown, WV
4. Livengood, CFCC, John C. and Jeffery L. Ottesen, PE CFCC PSP, 2010, CDR.06—The As-Built
Critical Path—Quest or Discovery?, 2010 AACE International Transactions, AACE
International, Morgantown, WV
5. AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, Forensic Schedule Analysis, April 25,
2011 Revision, AACE International, Morgantown, WV
PS.1691.18
Andrew Avalon, PE PSP

Long International, Inc.
aavalon@long-intl.com
PS.1691.19

PS.1691 Calculating The As-Built Critical Path: Andrew Avalon, PE PSP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PS.1691 Calculating The As-Built Critical Path: Andrew Avalon, PE PSP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PS.1691 Calculating The As-Built Critical Path: Andrew Avalon, PE PSP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 AACE® INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Calculating the As-Built Critical Path

Figure 1 – Out-of-Sequence Logic Correction: Guideline No. 1 .................................................. 4

Equation 1 – Finish-to-Start Lag Duration ................................................................................... 14

Verifying the Accuracy of the As-Built Schedule

Converting As-Planned Logic to As-Built Logic

Figure 1 — Out-of-Sequence Logic Correction: Guideline No. 1

Figure 2 — Out-of-Sequence Logic Correction: Guideline No. 2

Figure 3 — Out-of-Sequence Logic Correction: Guideline No. 3

Figure 4 — Out-of-Sequence Logic Correction: Guideline No. 4

Figure 5 — Out-of-Sequence Logic Correction: Guideline No. 5

Creating an As-Built Calculation Schedule for Each Schedule Analysis Window

To create an As-Built Calculation Schedule, it is necessary to destatus the as-built schedule by

Figure 6 — As-Built Calculation Schedule Creation: Step 1

Figure 7 — As-Built Calculation Schedule Creation: Step 2

Figure 8 — As-Built Calculation Schedule Creation: Step 3

The Destatusing Procedure

Figure 9 — Activity Status Conditions for Destatusing Procedure

Activity ID Actual Date Conditions Actions

Start-to-Start Lag Duration = Successor Start Date - Predecessor Start Date

Finish-to-Finish Lag Duration = Successor Finish Date - Predecessor Finish Date

Driving Predecessor Lag Determinations

To properly create an As-Built Calculation Schedule, it is necessary to determine the driving

 Was the work critical on any schedule updates?

Andrew Avalon, PE PSP

You might also like