Reducing Schedule Delays in Military Construction

---

By Diane Bragoni, RA, PSP, PMI-SP, PMP, M.SAME

Encountering delays in military construction projects is expensive and disruptive and all-too common, but by establishing a strong baseline schedule, resolving setbacks promptly, and using a “forward looking” analysis approach, these risks can be mitigated, for the benefit of all involved. 

Delays in military construction projects are expensive and stressful for both government and industry teams. They disrupt mission readiness, consume time and resources, and impact operational capabilities.
Recent reports from the Office of Inspector General within the Department of Defense underscore the severity of the issue. At the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), delays across four examined projects ranged from 120 to 847 days, averaging 364 days; throughout Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC), delays across five examined projects ranged from 383 to 1,563 days, averaging 809 days.

These protracted delays do not just affect the end users: they place immense pressure on industry construction teams, forcing them into defensive mode, increasing personnel turnover, and making it harder to retain experienced professionals. While the challenges are evident, there also are three key lessons that can help construction teams identify and mitigate schedule risks before they escalate. These include acknowledging the importance of on-time, quality baseline schedules; addressing delays in real time; and using forward-looking delay analysis.

Quality Baseline

By providing a documented plan that defines the construction sequencing, workflow, and key milestones, a baseline schedule is the foundation of a project. Without it (or with one that is delayed or poorly developed) both the government and contractor teams lose the ability to track project performance and proactively address emerging issues.

Agencies typically require contractors to submit a baseline schedule within 42 days after Notice to Proceed (for USACE), or 30 to 45 days after contract award (for NAVFAC). A timely, quality baseline serves as an objective reference point for tracking progress, identifying deviations, and mitigating risks before they escalate.

When a baseline schedule is missing or low quality, disputes become difficult to resolve. For example, if a contractor originally intended to build in Area A before moving on to Areas B and C, but later shifts to starting work at Area B first, the lack of a solid baseline makes it difficult to verify the intended plan. Without clear documentation, the contractor might assert that Area B was always the intended starting point, complicating delay analysis.

Low-quality baselines erode trust. If an unrealistic schedule is later deemed unworkable, determining the true cause, quantifying the delay, and assigning ownership becomes a subjective and contentious process. Having a quality, timely baseline schedule establishes clarity and accountability. This reduces the potential for disputes and ensures proactive delay management.

Resolution Steps

When project delays occur, momentum suffers. Contractors may assume the government is responsible; the government may assume the contractor is responsible. This ambiguity leads to stalled decision-making, prolonged inactivity, and wasted resources.

Imagine a delay that occurs midway through a project. If it stays unresolved (including by not identifying the impact on the completion date or determining responsibility) then progress will slow as incentives fade. When delays persist for months, even years, quantifying the consequential impacts, assigning responsibility, and recovering lost time becomes exponentially more difficult.

Moreover, when delays stay unresolved, no new contractual completion date is set. This leaves accountability unclear. Future actions stall. If the government ultimately assumes responsibility, it may be required to compensate the contractor on a time-and-materials basis rather than a firm-fixed price. Such a change can introduces cost uncertainty and operational inefficiency. By addressing delays in real time and establishing revised completion benchmarks, government and contractor each can maintain a clear target for completion, mitigate cost overruns, and sustain productivity.

Analyzing Delays

There are two primary approaches to analyzing schedule delays. A prospective or “looking forward” analysis assesses the delay right away and establishes a revised completion date. This method creates a clear benchmark and holds all parties accountable for the new deadline. A retrospective analysis (“looking backwards” or “forensic analysis”) assesses the delay after it occurred, which requires a review of historical documentation to reconstruct the timeline.

Resolving delays in real time is far more effective than retrospective analysis. Reviewing months or years of documentation to reconstruct events is time-intensive. The process is costly and often inconclusive. A forward-looking approach leverages current data to drive faster, more informed decisions.

When a delay is analyzed prospectively, government and contractor have immediate access to relevant data, allowing them to arrive at timely resolutions. Both parties can agree on a revised project completion date, allowing work to proceed efficiently.

By contrast, retrospective or forensic analysis presents major challenges. There may be document gaps, with records spanning months or years being incomplete, missing, or poorly maintained. Key personnel may have left the project, taking valuable insights and institutional knowledge with them. There may be escalating costs associated with this approach as well. A prospective time-impact analysis might require only a day of effort from a scheduler, while a forensic delay analysis could demand 10 times that effort. The cost increase could be significant.

Practical Approach

Construction teams are sometimes hesitant to perform forward-looking delay analyses, believing they lack sufficient information at the time to make conclusive evaluations. However, industry best practices emphasize the value of reviewing in real time, even with some uncertainty. As stipulated in AACE Recommended Practice 52R-06 (Time Impact Analysis – As Applied in Construction), a referenced document in the standard USACE scheduling specifications: “While imperfect, the ease and quickness of preparing and reviewing a time impact analysis should compensate for the lack of exactness in modeling the exact features of the impacts to a project due to a delay.”

Forward-looking analyses may not be perfect, but they are more practical. Addressing delays as they occur helps maintain momentum and should prevent costly disputes. Waiting for certainty before taking action often leads to paralysis and escalating costs.

Time and Resources

Schedule delays on military construction are costly and disruptive, but they can be managed effectively with early intervention and clear accountability. Based on analyzing more than $100 million in project delays, a series of key takeaways emerge.

• Be proactive in planning, communication, and expectations. Without an initial schedule, tracking and resolving delays becomes significantly more challenging as work moves forward.
• Resolve delays promptly to maintain productivity. Unaddressed delays create ambiguity, slow progress, and make recovery increasingly difficult.
• Use forward-looking analysis whenever possible. Addressing delays in real time is significantly more efficient than a backwards-looking approach or forensic analysis.

Following these principles, military construction teams can reduce schedule risks, enhance project outcomes, and support mission success, all without unnecessary overruns or contractual disputes. The earlier that delays are addressed, the smoother execution will be, and the more beneficial it will be to owners.

Diane Bragoni, RA, PSP, PMI-SP, PMP, M.SAME, is Founder and Principal Consultant, CPM Schedule Solutions LLC; diane.bragoni@cpm-ss.com.

Published in the May-June 2025 issue of The Military Engineer