{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017783857729138167, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002051983584131327, 'mean_word_length': 5.619909502262443, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Delay Analysis Statements in the Presence of Debatable Concerns in Construction Projects

Construction projects usually suffer from the risk of delayed completion. Consequently, delay analysis is used to evaluate and apportion the effects of delays on the project schedule, and thus liabilities can be assigned. This article introduces available delay analysis methods along with their capabilities and limitations. Also, the article provides a guide for selecting the appropriate delay analysis method. Yet, analysis of schedule delay events may be influenced by some debatable issues, including float ownership, concurrency, pacing delays, and acceleration. This article represents these issues, which reveal that there exists a gap in handling such analysis. Hence, a questionnaire is designed that intends to raise the awareness of practitioners and propose the idea of standardizing the project decisions when facing such issues. After collecting the responses from 394 participants, the results reveal that the contractor should reject to accelerate the work progress until gaining compensation entitlement as a result of employer-caused delays, taking the risk of falling into the misery of liquidated damages. Also, the results illustrate the contractor's entitlements and project decisions when facing such debatable concerns. Different from previous papers, the findings of this article propose a standard way of thinking toward these debatable issues.