Delays to delivery of the contract

6 The contract experienced delays from the early stages of delivery (Figure 11). By March 2016, 28% of the work had been completed, compared to 49% in the plan. At this point (and at various points during the programme), Crossrail Ltd revised the programme plan to bring it back in line with actual progress. As the chart shows, progress on the contract has repeatedly and consistently diverged from each revised plan, meaning that the plan was not a reflection refection of prior performance.

7 The causes of the delay have varied throughout the contract's life. However, there are common themes. In the early stages of the contract, in 2015, initial delays were attributed to the deferral of procurement activities and delayed design work. From June 2015, further schedule delays were reported to be due to access issues resulting from delays to work at stations, which required a significant change in the contractor's proposed approach to installing track and overhead power lines. For example, in December 2015 delays were attributed to access issues to Paddington, Bond Street, Whitechapel, Tottenham Court Road, Canary Wharf, Custom House and Westbourne Park stations. Access issues to various sites continue to be a recurring cause of schedule slippage from then on.

8 The issues set out above contributed to lower than expected productivity. For example, in March 2016 the laying of track was reported as behind schedule, with 11 km laid compared to a planned 14.6 km. Throughout 2018, schedule delays were mostly attributable to the ongoing productivity issues, partly related to unreliable access to work sites. Overall, delays to schedule created a sustained gap between planned and achieved work that was never successfully closed.

Note

1 The dips in the planned progress line reflect the rebasing of the programme plan when Crossrail Ltd revised the Master Operational Handover Schedule (MOHS).