Application Issues of Impacted As-Planned Schedule for Delay Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The following are my comments on your manuscript entitled "Issues in the Application of Impacted Programming as Intended for Delay Analysis".
First of all, I would like to point out that the subject matter is very interesting. Knowing the reason for delays and being able to avoid litigation is a field of research that is directly applicable to the construction sector.
The use of milestones to control the impacted as-planned (IAP) is a technique that can be used not only for deadline management but also to manage project risks.
The behavior of the milestones, which initially correspond to events related to the contract, are constraints that are transferred to the project plan. The assumption of removing this constraint also removes the relationship of the schedule to the contract and it should be noted that a schedule is a tool, not in itself a deliverable of the project.
Although the introduction states that most construction projects are delayed, it does not indicate any source to justify this. It should justify the claim.
The introductory section generally introduces the topic but does not really address the gap between the current situation and what the research contributes.
It is important that the objectives are not highlighted, because although the problem is explained, the main objectives of this work are not mentioned.
On the other hand, there is no theoretical development of the methodology used. In section 3, the authors show the application to a typical 40-day project. It is very basic research.
In the discussion, like the previous work, it would need to be thoroughly revised in order to be of scientific value.
Finally, the conclusions are also very basic. The use of tokens or milestones to determine delay, either with or without constraints, is common practice in other sectors, such as shipbuilding or industry, where the complexity of the project is much higher than in the construction sector. Therefore, the conclusions are in line with the rest of the manuscript.
In relation to the bibliography, it is insufficient and there is more current research that could support it.
I hope these comments will help you to improve your manuscript in the future.
Best regards
Author Response
The authors are really appreciating the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
These comments have helped to make considerable improvements to the quality of the revised version of the manuscript.
The authors tried to address all of the reviewers’ comments.
We attached a detailed response to the reviewers' comments and our revised manuscript.
Please find the attached files.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
All comments are in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors are really appreciating the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
These comments have helped to make considerable improvements to the quality of the revised version of the manuscript.
The authors tried to address all of the reviewers’ comments.
We attached a detailed response to the reviewers' comments and our revised manuscript.
Please find the attached files.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for incorporating the suggestions.
Kind regards
