Multiple-window Modified But-For analysis of project delays and accelerations

References

• AACE RP 29R-03. 2011. Forensic schedule analysis. Morgantown, West Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International.
   Google Scholar
• ASCE 67-17. 2017. Schedule delay analysis. In American Society of Civil Engineers. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• Bhih M, Hegazy T. 2019. Concurrent delays: comparison among forensic analysis recommended practices. CSCE 7th International Construction Conference/Construction Research Congress 2019, CON117-1–10. Laval, Quebec, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Bhih M, Hegazy T. 2020a. Improving but-for delay analysis and concurrency assessment. In: Skibniewski M, Hajdu M, editors. Proceedings of the Creative Construction e-Conference; p. 125–130. Budapest, Hungary: Diamond Congress Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Bhih M, Hegazy T. 2020b. Improving concurrency assessment and resolving misconceptions about the But-For delay analysis technique. J Leg Aff Dispute Resolut Eng Constr. 12(2):04520007(1–10). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000378
   Google Scholar
• Bhih M, Hegazy T. 2021a. Enhanced But-For Method (EBFM) to apportion net delays and accelerations. ASCE - J Constr Eng Manage. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002094.
   Google Scholar
• Bhih M, Hegazy T. 2021b. Enhanced Daily Windows Delay-Analysis (EDWA) technique. ASCE-J Leg Aff Dispute Resol Eng Constr. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000475.
   Google Scholar
• Braimah N. 2013. Construction delay analysis techniques—a review of application issues and improvement needs. Buildings. 3(3):506–531.
   Google Scholar
• Dale WS, D’Onofrio RM. 2017. Construction schedule delays (2017 ed.). Albuquerque, New Mexico: Thomson Reuters.
   Google Scholar
• El-Adaway IH, Fawzy S. a, Bingham R, Clark P, Tidwell T. 2014. Different Delay Analysis Techniques Applied to the American Institute of Architects A201-2007 Standard Form of Contract. J Leg Aff Dispute Resolut Eng Constr. 6(3):02514001.
   Google Scholar
• Fawzy S. a, El-Adaway IH. 2012. Contract administration guidelines for effectively and efficiently applying different delay analysis techniques under world bank funded projects. J Leg Aff Dispute Resolut Eng ConstrJ Leg Aff Dispute Resolut Eng Constr. 5(February):120915032631000.
   Google Scholar
• Gothand KD. 2003. Schedule delay analysis: Modified windows approach. Cost Eng (Morgantown, WV). 45(9):18–23.
   Google Scholar
• Harris RA, Scott S. 2001. UK practice in dealing with claims for delay. Eng Const Arch Man. 8(5/6):317–324.
   Google Scholar
• Hegazy T, Menesi W. 2008. Construction delay analysis under multiple baseline updates (University of Waterloo). J Constr Eng Manage. 134(8):575–582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegazy T, Menesi W. 2008a. Delay analysis considering dynamic resource allocation and multiple baselines. AACE Int Trans. CDR 14:1–8. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=33719969&site=ehost-live.
   Google Scholar
• Hegazy T, Menesi W. 2008b. Delay analysis under multiple baseline updates. J Constr Eng Manage. 134(8):575–582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegazy T, Zhang K. 2005. Daily Windows Delay Analysis. J Constr Eng Manage. 131(5):505–512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin P. 1998. Construction contract claims, changes and dispute resolution (2nd ed.; A. Press, editor). New York (NY): American Society of Civil Engineering.
   Google Scholar
• Lifschitz BJ, Barba EM, Lockshin AM, Compa RR. 2009. A critical review of the AACEI recommended practice for forensic schedule analysis. Constr Lawyer 29(4):1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Livengood J. 2017. Knowns and unknowns of concurrent delay. J Legal Aff Disput Resolut Eng Constr. 9(3):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000224.
   Google Scholar
• Magdy M, Georgy M, Osman H, Elsaid M. 2019. Delay analysis methodologies used by engineering and construction firms in Egypt. J Leg Aff Dispute Resolut Eng Constr. 11(3):04519006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mbabazi A, Hegazy T, Saccomanno F. 2005. Modified But-For method for delay analysis. J Constr Eng Manage. 131(10):1142–1144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menesi W. 2007. Construction delay analysis under multiple baseline updates [Master's thesis]. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo. https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/2737/MASc-Thesis-Construction_Delay_Analysis_under_Multiple_Baseline_Updates.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
   Google Scholar
• Schumacher L. 1995. Quantifying and apportioning delay on construction projects. Cost Eng. 37(2):11–13.
   Google Scholar
• SCL-DDP. 2017. Delay and disruption protocol. Hinckley, Leicestershire: Society of Construction Law.
   Google Scholar
• Stumpf GR. 2000. Schedule delay analysis. Cost Eng (Morgantown, WV). 42(7):32–43.
   Google Scholar
• Vasilyeva-Lyulina A. 2013. The study on methodological framework for comparing delay analysis methods in construction contracts. [Ph. D. thesis]. Department of Urban Management, Kyoto University, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Yang JB, Kao C-K. 2009. Review of delay analysis methods: a process-based comparison. TOBCTJ. 3(1):81–89.
   Google Scholar
• Yang J. B., Yin P-C. 2009. Isolated collapsed but-for delay analysis methodology. J Constr Eng Manage. 135(7):570–578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zack J. 1999. But-For schedules - analysis and defense. AACE Int Trans. CDR 04:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Zack J. 2000. Pacing delays-the practical effect. Cost Eng (Morgantown, WV). 42(7):23–28.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang K, Hegazy T. 2005. Apportioning concurrent delays and accelerations using daily windows. Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives - Proceedings of the Congress, (519), p. 787–796.
   Google Scholar