As-planned vs as-built analysis

The simplest way to look at delay is to put the plan next to what actually happened. As-planned vs as-built analysis does exactly that. It is quick, easy to explain and a good first look at any claim. It is also weak on causation, because it shows where the project slipped without showing why. This lesson shows how to do it well and where it stops.

Learning outcomes

• Perform an as-planned vs as-built comparison at milestone and activity level.
• Identify where delay accumulated on a project.
• Explain why the method is weak on causation and concurrency.
• Use it as a screening step before a fuller analysis.

The lesson

How it works

Take the accepted baseline and the as-built record. Compare start and finish dates for each milestone, then for the activities on the paths that drove completion. The difference shows where delay appeared and how it grew. In AACE RP 29R-03 terms this is observational, static logic: MIP 3.1 when done for the whole project at once, MIP 3.2 when done period by period [1].

Strengths

It needs only two schedules, it is cheap, and a project director or adjudicator can understand it in minutes. On a small claim, or as the first step on a large one, it often shows quickly whether the claim is plausible and where to look harder.

Limits

The method assumes the baseline logic held all project long, which is rarely true. It does not identify the critical path at the time of each event, so it cannot separate owner delay from contractor delay running in parallel. It shows that the roof was late, not who made it late. On a contested claim it is a starting point, not proof.

Northgate worked example

Northgate Distribution Centre (fictional) is a 12,000 m² tilt-up warehouse in Vaughan, Ontario, built by Halvorsen Builders Ltd. (fictional) under CCDC 2-2020, with Ridgeline Architects Inc. (fictional) as Consultant. See the Northgate fact sheet. This course follows one delay claim from first notice to settlement. Ready-for-Takeover (M9) was due Friday, January 14, 2028 and was reached on Tuesday, March 14, 2028: 60 calendar days late. All events, dates and amounts are illustrative.

The owner's representative starts her review of Claim C-01 with a milestone comparison (Figure 2). It shows the delay building in two places: 8 days at tilt-up panels (M5), growing to 23 days at roof complete (M6), 37 days at permanent power (M7), 55 days at commissioning start (M8) and 60 days at Ready-for-Takeover (M9).

The comparison tells her where to look: the summer roof and mezzanine period, the fall power connection, and the winter commissioning. It cannot tell her that 8 of the early days were Halvorsen's crane breakdown, or that the roof deck delay overlapped the mezzanine redesign. Those answers need the windows analysis in lesson 10.

Your move

If you are the owner

• Run it first. A milestone comparison shows where the delay sits in an hour.
• Don't accept it as proof of causation. Ask what else happened in each period.
• Use it to scope the review. Focus effort on the periods where delay grew.
• Keep milestone dates in every update. It makes this comparison trivial.

If you are the contractor

• Use it to explain, not to prove. Pair it with causation evidence.
• Show your own delays too. An honest comparison earns credibility.
• Check the baseline logic first. If the plan was unrealistic, the comparison misleads.
• Don't stop here on a large claim. Reviewers will go further.

Common mistakes

1. Presenting the variance as owner delay. Variance is not causation.
2. Comparing against an unaccepted baseline. The reference must be agreed.
3. Ignoring logic changes. Re-sequencing during the job changes the critical path.
4. Activity-level noise. Focus on driving paths, not every bar.
5. Skipping it. It is the fastest sanity check available.

Quick quiz

1. Which AACE MIP is as-planned vs as-built for the whole project at once?

   1. 3.1
   2. 3.3
   3. 3.6
   4. 3.8

2. What is the main weakness of as-planned vs as-built?

   1. It is expensive
   2. It does not show why delay happened or separate concurrent causes
   3. It needs many updates
   4. It cannot show milestone dates

3. When is it most useful?

   1. As final proof in arbitration
   2. As a first look to decide where to analyse further
   3. Never
   4. Only for owners

4. At Northgate, how much delay had built up by roof complete (M6)?

   1. 8 days
   2. 23 days
   3. 37 days
   4. 60 days

5. What assumption does the method make about logic?

   1. Logic changed every month
   2. The baseline logic held throughout
   3. There was no logic
   4. Logic is irrelevant

Key terms

As-planned schedule

The accepted baseline: the plan before work started.

As-built schedule

The record of actual start and finish dates.

Milestone variance

The difference between planned and actual milestone dates.

Static logic

Analysis that uses one fixed set of schedule logic for the whole project.

Driving path

The chain of activities that controls a milestone date.

References

1. AACE International, Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, Forensic Schedule Analysis, table of contents and method taxonomy (revision April 25, 2011).
2. Fenwick Elliott, The SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol: a second edition (November 2017), summarizing the Society of Construction Law Protocol, 2nd edition (February 2017).
3. Miller Thomson LLP, Ontario Court underlines the evidence and analysis required to establish critical path delays (July 2021).
4. BRC, Northgate fact sheet (fictional case study, v1, November 4, 2026).

Verified on November 9, 2026.