Time impact analysis: what each public-agency specification requires
Sixteen public-agency scheduling documents have been read end to end for this site, and the comparison hub sets out what each one asks for. This page turns that reading ninety degrees and follows a single subject through all of them: when a delay arrives, what does the specification require the Contractor to submit about its effect on time?
The answer divides more sharply than the vocabulary suggests. Three documents name an external recommended practice. Two prescribe a shape of their own without naming anyone's method. Six require an analysis and leave the method open. Five require no analysis of impact at all, and route a time extension through a different clause entirely.
What this page is not. It does not describe how any delay analysis method works, and it does not perform one. The methods this project uses states what this engine computes, including where a prospective analysis under the AACE recommended practice for time impact analysis fits; how delay analysis methods differ compares the families. Nothing here decides excusability, compensability or entitlement — those are the reviewing authority's determinations under the contract.
Part one: is an analysis required, and is a method named
| Agency | Analysis required | Method named, or shape prescribed | Clause |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caltrans | Yes, with each request to adjust Contract time and whenever a change may affect the critical path | Shape prescribed: insert the change into the accepted schedule whose data date is closest to and before the event, and compare the two scheduled completion dates | §8-1.02C(8)(b) |
| NYSDOT | Yes, with any request for a contract time extension | Defined as a term in the item; the operative procedure was not established from the material read | Item 639 |
| VDOT | Yes, in two forms — Prospective and Retrospective Schedule Impact Analysis | Shape prescribed for the prospective form: a fragnet inserted into a copy of the pre-impact schedule | Category III V.1, V.2 |
| WisDOT | Not established. Documentation including schedule updates supports a time extension request; no named analysis was read | Not established | §108.4.4.6 |
| WVDOH | Not stated in §108.3. Time extensions route to §108.6, which was not read clause by clause | Not established | §108.6 |
| ADOT | Not stated in this provision. A Request for Extension of Contract Time carries a revised schedule and supporting data | None | §104.03, §108.08 |
| MnDOT | Yes — an Impact Schedule quantifying contemporaneous or prospective impacts | Named. Prospective delay to the AACE recommended practice on time impact analysis; delay already suffered to the MIP 3.4 approach within the forensic schedule analysis practice | §1803.3B.6, §1806 |
| NJDOT | Yes — a Time Impact Evaluation | Shape prescribed: a Department form plus a CPM fragnet showing logic revisions, duration changes and new activities with predecessors and successors | 108.11.01.C |
| SCDOT | Not stated in this provision. The schedule is a stated basis for evaluating requests for more time; no form is prescribed | None | Level 2 requirements |
| MDOT SHA | Yes, and definitionally — the extension rests on the calendar days of impact a Contractor-submitted Time Impact Analysis determines | Defined in the book as prospective and modelled | §109.03.04.01, §109.01.01 |
| TxDOT | Yes, when directed, in four prescribed steps | Shape prescribed, not cited — see below | 5.5.4 |
| WSDOT | Not stated in this provision. An unresolved extension request is shown in the update assuming none will be granted | None | 1-08.3(3) |
| PennDOT | Yes — Supporting Schedules with the request | Shape prescribed: a pre-impact and a post-impact schedule, not an analysis method | 108.06(a) |
| CDOT | Yes, with a written notice preceding it | Named, with three routes — see below | 108.08(d) |
| UFGS 01 32 01.00 10 | Yes, split prospective from retrospective | Named, with a governing standard where the two conflict | §3.8.3, §3.8.4 |
| UFGS 01 32 17.00 20 (NAVFAC) | Yes, with each cost and time proposal, in narrative and schedule form | Not named in the clause read | §1.11.1 |
Part two: the clocks
Deadlines are where these documents differ most and agree least. Several attach forfeiture to the notice rather than to the analysis, which puts the earliest date on the tightest clock.
| Agency | Notice of delay | Analysis due | Agency response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caltrans | Not stated separately | Within 5 business days of a proposed change affecting the critical or near-critical path; within 10 days of a written request | Not established |
| CDOT | Written notice within 7 days, or entitlement is waived | Within 30 days of that notice | Not established for the analysis itself |
| TxDOT | Notice of potential time impact; failing to give it forfeits the right to request an extension, except where the impact could not reasonably have been known | Step 4 within 15 calendar days of the effects ending, or of the effect becoming fully known | Not established |
| PennDOT | Not stated separately | No later than 30 calendar days after the event ends, through ECMS with the schedule files sent separately | 14 calendar days |
| NJDOT | Notice on an excusable delay; failing to give notice or to provide the evaluation waives the claim to more contract time | When the extent of the impact can be determined | Not established |
| UFGS | Justification of delay to the Contracting Officer within 10 days of a delay occurring | With the justification | Not established |
| MDOT SHA | Not stated separately | With the written extension request, separated by cause | Not established |
| VDOT | Not stated separately | Prospective analysis within 7 days of the Engineer's request, before proceeding with the changed work | Not established |
| MnDOT | Not stated separately | With the Impact Schedule | Per the submission table |
Every "not established" above means the clause was not read, not that no clock exists. Several of these documents handle notice in a claims article this reading did not reach.
The three that name a recommended practice, and the one condition attached
MnDOT's §1806, CDOT's 108.08(d) and UFGS §3.8.3–§3.8.4 all send the analyst to AACE International recommended practices rather than describing a procedure. All three split the same way — a prospective practice for impacts not yet absorbed, a forensic practice for impacts already in the record — and each adds something the other two do not.
MnDOT states which schedule the calculation starts from: the most recent one accepted before the event, with a worked illustration of what that means when a change order lands mid-month. It selects the MIP 3.4 approach within the forensic practice by name rather than leaving the choice of sub-method open.
CDOT attaches two conditions to the schedule, not to the analysis. The supporting schedule must be a current approved one carrying a data date within 30 days before the alleged delay, and having no current approved schedule precludes an extension. Read with the monthly update obligation at 108.03(b) — where no monthly payment issues without an update — that turns routine updating into a precondition for the delay remedy rather than a reporting chore. CDOT also permits a third route: another method the Engineer approves, with the choice explained in every case.
UFGS names a governing standard for conflicts, and because it is a United States Government work it can be quoted directly. §3.8.3 states:
Prepare a time impact analysis for approval by the Contracting Officer based on industry recommended practice AACE 52R-06. Utilize a copy of the last approved schedule prior to the first day of the impact or delay.
Where that schedule is too old, an interim update is prepared, and no other changes go in without the Contracting Officer's approval. §3.8.4 covers impacts that have already occurred, requires the analysis to account for the actual performance of both the impacted work and everything else in the schedule, and settles precedence: "If there is a conflict with the methodology chosen from AACE 29R-03 and ASCE 67-17, ASCE 67-17 will govern." §3.8.6 then states the entitlement test — no extension unless the delay consumes all available Project Float and pushes the projected finish past the Contract Completion Date.
The AACE recommended practices themselves are not reproduced anywhere on this site. What each requires is a matter for those documents. See the standards map.
The two that prescribe a shape instead, and they are different shapes
TxDOT describes a procedure over time. 5.5.4 sets four steps: the project's status immediately before the impact; a prediction of the impact's effect on that schedule; tracking of the effects while the impact is occurring; and the status once the effect has ended, with the mitigating actions used to keep the project going identified. Steps 1, 3 and 4 must be complete before an extension or a milestone adjustment is considered, so the prospective step is the optional one — the two status snapshots and the contemporaneous tracking are not. 5.5.4 also gives the Engineer a ground for rejecting the analysis outright: schedule revisions found in the review that were not identified in a narrative. That wires the narrative obligation at 5.5.2.3 directly into the analysis.
PennDOT describes two artefacts. 108.06(a) asks for Supporting Schedules with the extension request: whichever accepted schedule was current when the impact arrived, and a post-impact schedule showing what the impact did to the Required Completion Date or to a Milestone Date. No method is named, no steps are enumerated, and nothing is said about how the second is derived from the first.
The difference is worth naming because the two are not interchangeable. A procedure can be audited step by step and can fail at a step; a pair of artefacts can only be compared. Neither is characterised here as better, and neither is this project's recommendation — they are what the two documents ask for.
The five that require no analysis of impact
Silence on this subject is not a gap. Each of these five routes the question somewhere else, and in two cases the substitute is unusually explicit.
- WSDOT requires the update to carry the open question instead: an unresolved request for a time extension is shown assuming no extension will be granted, with the effects on the following activities kept inside the currently authorised contract time (1-08.3(3)). The schedule states the Contractor's position and the agency's default simultaneously.
- ADOT gates the question earlier rather than later. §108.08 will not consider an extension unless the affected work is a controlling item at the time of the change, or becomes one because of it — a threshold written in scheduling vocabulary, with no prescribed way of demonstrating it.
- SCDOT makes the schedule a stated basis for evaluating requests for more contract time, with supporting documentation included and referenced in the schedule as it arises, and prescribes no form.
- WisDOT's §108.4.4.6 requires documentation including schedule updates to support a request. No named analysis was read.
- WVDOH's §108.3 is silent and routes time extensions to §108.6. Where the Division revises work affecting sequence or duration, §108.3.4 requires a written report within 7 calendar days under that section.
Four further states were read for the hub page and require no CPM schedule at all — Georgia, Florida, Ohio and Illinois. None of the four prescribes an analysis of time impact in the clauses read.
Notice is the clause with teeth
Three of these documents attach forfeiture to a missed notice rather than to a missed analysis: CDOT's 7 days, NJDOT's notice on an excusable delay, and TxDOT's notice of potential time impact. In each the analysis then follows on a longer clock. A reader comparing deadlines across agencies will find the analysis dates broadly similar and the notice dates the place where the documents actually diverge — and the notice is the one no schedule file records.
What a schedule file settles, and what it does not
An exported schedule carries its data date, its activities, its logic, its calendars, its constraints and the float that follows from them. Two exports compared state what moved between them. That is the input an analysis starts from, and this project computes and reports it — see what the engine does and reading a report.
What a file does not carry: the date a submission was made, the date an impact began or ended, whether notice was given, whether a schedule was accepted, and which of two parties caused a movement. Every deadline in the second table above is a fact about a submission, so this project does not check them, and its silence about them is not a statement that they were met. The same is true of the fragnet requirements: a file can show that activities were added, and cannot show that they represent the change the clause asks about.
Excusability, compensability, concurrency and entitlement are not questions this project answers. See limitations.
Related pages
- How the sixteen specifications compare — the source of every row above, agency by agency.
- Agency detail: Caltrans · CDOT · MnDOT · MDOT SHA · NJDOT · PennDOT · TxDOT · UFGS · VDOT · WSDOT.
- Delay analysis methods compared · extension of time · concurrent delay · acceleration and disruption.
- Recovery schedules across the specifications · baseline submission.
- The methods this project uses · the standards map · glossary.
Source: web/pages/time-impact-analysis.md. Source commit date: 2026-09-11.