ce12-01

THE JOURNAL OF AACE® INTERNATIONAL THE AUTHORITY FOR TOTAL COST MANAGEMENTTM COST THE BASICS OF January 2012 ENGINEERING www.aacei.org CONSTRUCTIVE ACCELERATION OFFSETTING DELAYS — THE OWNER’S FRIEND FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS: EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION PART II Bending over backwards to get a handle on costs? The data exists, but never quite as you need it. It’s spread across multiple systems and the contortions you go through to produce your monthly reports are enough to make a chiropractor rich. EcoSys EPC is an easy-to-use, web-based project cost management solution that will integrate your cost and schedule, automate reporting, and deliver the very best visibility into your project performance. Ahhh. Now, doesn’t that feel better? Planning & Controls Software for Projects, Programs and the Enterprise: • Project Cost Management • Capital Planning • Budgeting & Forecasting • Earned Value Management • Portfolio Management • Funds Management • Resource Management • Estimating www.ecosys.net CONTENTS COST ENGINEERING TECHNICAL ARTICLES 4 The Basics of Constructive Acceleration James G. Zack Jr., CFCC FRICS 15 Offsetting Delays — The Owner’s Friend John C. Livengood, CFCC PSP 25 Forensic Schedule Analysis: Example Implementation Part II Mark C. Sanders, PE CCE PSP ALSO FEATURED 2 2 14 53 AACE International Board of Directors Cost Engineering Journal Information AACE’s 2012 Annual Meeting “Ask Your Candidates” 2012 Election 55 55 58 60 Professional Services Directory Index to Advertisers The AACE International Online Store Calendar of Events THE AACE INTERNATIONAL ONLINE BUTTON - This edition of the Cost Engineering journal has access to additional material on the AACE International website, www.aacei.org. Anytime you see the symbol at center, there is additional content online associated with that article or feature. Direct your browser to www.aacei.org and look for the online button to access additional resources. If you are already reading the electronic version, just click the online button directly. COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 1 aacei. P. Suite 900. PE CCE PSP 609.00. features.2472 / president@aacei. Executive Plaza 1. excluding special inserts available to AACE members only. 222 Rosewood Drive. E-mail requests for photocopy permission on bulk orders may be sent to editor@aacei. representation.0521 / dirregion5@aacei. CCC PSP 213. Copying for other than personal or internal reference use without the express permission of AACE is prohibited. Stork 304.497. and services. The publisher reserves the right to place the word advertisement with copy which. COST ENGINEERING DEADLINES: Submissions for Cost Engineering must be received at least 8 weeks in advance of the issue date. Cost Engineering is a refereed journal. FAACE 403.org Mark Stout Network Media Partners Inc. and Articles Viewpoints expressed in columns.2426 / vpadmin@aacei. Subscriptions are accepted on an annual-year basis only. Advertisers and advertising agencies assume liability for all content (including text. CCC 713. All advertising accepted for publication in Cost Engineering is limited to subjects that directly relate to the cost management profession.. US$91/year. The fee code for users of the transactional reporting service is ISSN-0274-9696/02 US$4. in the publisher’s opinion. All content is presented solely for informational purposes.631. USA.7674 / [email protected] members of AACE® enable organizations around the world to achieve thier investment expectations by managing and controlling projects. and articles not designated as Technical Articles are not subject to the peer-review process.com for rates. Deadlines do not apply to technical papers.COST fax . Morgantown. products. RPO West Beaver Creek. 54. resembles editorial matter. III. WV 26505-1876 800.410. CCE EVP +971. and at additional mailing office.708.org and submit a 200 word or less abstract to editor@aacei. Single copies: US$9 members/ US$14 nonmembers (both + shipping). CCC PSP 562..750. Printed in York.org AACE® International . PE CCE 513.1230 x 620 / [email protected] fax . Seabrook.1/January 2012 PRESIDENT-ELECT Marlene Hyde.org DIRECTOR-REGION 2 John C. Revay. Overseas airmail delivery is available at US$99. Ciccarelli.858. its staff. Features.3200 / [email protected] HEADQUARTERS 1265 Suncrest Towne Centre Dr Morgantown. The publisher reserves the right to reject any advertising that is not considered in keeping with the publication’s mission and standards.7434 /vptec@aacei. features. and illustrations) of advertisements printed and also assume responsibility for any claims arising therefrom made against the publisher. MD 21031.5728 VICE PRESIDENT-FINANCE John J. Views expressed by them or the editor do not necessarily represent the official position of Cost Engineering.50. Current rate card available on request. AACE assumes no responsibility for statements and opinions advanced by the contributors to its publications. assets. WV 26505-1876 USA. Periodicals postage paid at Morgantown. Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to PO Box 503.org PAST PRESIDENT Stephen O.372. Payment should be sent directly to CCC. Copyright © 2012 by AACE International. Customer #7012359 (APC).291.org DIRECTOR-REGION 5 Earl J.922. E-mail: aace@networkmediapartners. PHOTOCOPY PERMISSION: Authorization to photocopy articles herein for internal or personal use.8359 [email protected] DIRECTOR-REGION 8 Keith Webb +61. CCC CEP EVP 301.org DIRECTOR-REGION 1 Ginette Basak. we create value by advancing technical knowledge and professional development.4900 / [email protected] Authority for Total Cost Management TM VICE PRESIDENT-TEC George Whyte.372.777.org DIRECTOR-REGION 4 Duane R. No. Carson.org Noah Kinderknecht [email protected]. Nosbisch.8400. CCE EVP 303.669.org DIRECTOR-REGION 3 James H. Subscription rates: United States. Inc. This publication or any part thereof may not be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher.93485045 / [email protected] / vpregions@aacei. CCC CEP 770.To be the recognized technical authority in cost and schedule management for programs.org 2 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . WV 26501 USA.241. Inc. projects. 1265 Suncrest Towne Centre Dr. OUR MISSION .org. programs.8. and articles published in Cost Engineering journal are solely those of the authors and do not represent an official position of AACE International.com VICE PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION Martin Darley.. ADVERTISING COPY: Contact Network Media Partners. Morgantown.584.4830 / [email protected]. Publications Mail Agreement No 40624074. CCC CFCC 403.org OUR VISION . or the internal or personal use of specific clients. VICE PRESIDENT-REGIONS Julie Owen.AACE INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Michael R. MA 01923 USA. provided that the base fee of US$4.org Policy Concerning Published Columns.org DIRECTOR-REGION 6 Nicholas Kellar.1360 / dirregion2@aacei. Meyer. For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by CCC. or AACE International. US$72/year. Morgantown. Telephone: 410. 1265 Suncrest Towne Centre Dr.940. All rights reserved. CFCC PSP 202. WV. Hunt Valley. Inc.Eng. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to AACE International. all other countries.304. Inc.1966. Livengood..2285 / vpfinance@aacei. Cost Engineering (ISSN: 0274-9696/12) is published monthly by AACE International.00 is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center. 209 Prairie Ave. Telephone: 978. All technical articles are subject to review by a minimum of three experts in the field.org DIRECTOR-REGION 7 Philips Tharakan Mulackal. PA. ON L4B 4R6. and portfolios. CCC FRICS 713.9799 / [email protected] Managing Editor Art Director Advertising Sales Marvin Gelhausen [email protected]. 11350 McCormick Road. WV 26505-1876 USA. Richmond Hill. is granted by AACE International. Send to: Editor. CCC EVP PSP dirregion6@aacei. 410. Columns.444. see author guidelines at www. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dennis G. Danvers.584. To submit a manuscript for peer review.8444 / [email protected]. a separate system of payment has been arranged. AACE International is not endorsing or sponsoring the author’s work. Suite 100.org CONTENTS COST ENGINEERING Established 1958 Vol. com/careers .a world of opportunity We invite you to apply on our website bechtel. The contractor must provide notice that they construe this action to be a directive to accelerate. or authors have summarized these even three. Professor Ian Duncan Wallace. established a standard six point test to determine whether constructive acceleration It is noted that some authors occurred on a contract [3].” A claim not arising under a contract was typically classified as breach of contract. the doctrine of constructive acceleration is a well • recognized legal theory in the US. in order to give jurisdiction to the US federal agency appeals board as a claim on the contract and not for its breach. Prior to 1978. or otherwise postponed (i. the Boards were only empowered to hear claims “arising under a contract. And. The contractor must actually accelerate the work.TECHNICAL ARTICLE THE BASICS OF CONSTRUCTIVE ACCELERATION James G. can they recover in arbitration or litigation in other jurisdictions? This article examines constructive acceleration in various legal jurisdictions (both common law and civil law) around the world to determine whether a contractor is able to use this type of claim to recover damages. not responded to at all. four. USbased contractors know what must be documented in order to recover in such situations. Zack Jr.. contractors. The constructive acceleration claim “…was devised prior to 1978. incur and document their added costs [4]. and litigation • • • T he constructive acceleration claim is a creation of the US Federal Boards of Contract Appeals (“the Boards”). This article was first presented at the 2011 AACE International Annual Meeting as manuscript CDR. Notwithstanding whether requirements as follows. 4 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . this standard • The contractor must have set of rules meets the basic construction encountered excusable delay or claims equation—entitlement. causation. The US federal government’s Boards of Contract Appeals long ago created this claim and established the basic rules of entitlement concerning this type of claim. they are compressed or not. As a result all such claims had to be taken to the US Court of Claims. has termed constructive acceleration as a. or in some other manner that can reasonably be construed as an order to complete the work within the unextended time. CFCC FRICS Abstract: Constructive acceleration is a well recognized claim in the US. But when US contractors are working outside the US and are faced with this sort of situation. damages. claims.e. in whole or in part. The time extension must be denied. Various condense these points to five. delay for which a time extension is and damages. Thus. common law. The owner or their representative must act by coercion.521. civil law. (For a more thorough discussion of warranted under the terms of the the doctrine of constructive acceleration see Constructive Acceleration: Waking contract (whether the delay is compensable is irrelevant). in the 1960s.. Key Words: Arbitration. The contractor must timely submit notice in accordance with the provisions of the contract and follow up with a proper request for time extension. something the Boards could not hear. Regardless of this opinion. which after some reasonable period of time is deemed a denial). direction.”[1] One English barrister. “…fictitious doctrine … not founded on consensual or quasi-contractual basis”[2]. The Basics of Construction Acceleration The earliest cases issued by the • Boards. Stephen Dale and Robert M. is there another legal mechanism a contractor can use to recover such costs in situations such as this? Australia Even though Australia is one of the Commonwealth countries.—coupled. Australian courts have looked to the English law rule concerning. the contractor will still be held to the standard of proving their damages. where an Australian court awarded acceleration damages to a contractor despite the fact that the owner never ordered acceleration of the work. Either the contractor refuses to accelerate and waits until the end of the project to gamble that they can convince an arbitration panel or court that they did not cause the delay. if it is not. plus the late completion damages imposed under the contract! Let’s now look at various countries around the globe to determine whether the legal concept of “constructive acceleration” is recognized and. indicated clearly that this type of claim could only be on the basis of some proven breach of contract by the owner. Muldoon [7]. However. Australian courts are likely to award the resulting damages to the contractor [12]. by W. Justice Macfarlane. or the contractor opts to accelerate the work to complete on time and pursues damages from the owner for the cost of the acceleration. Under the terms of the contract. including breach of contract claims [8]. that the owner knew the contract administrator was not administering the contract correctly. Reconciling Concurrency in Schedule Delay and Constructive Acceleration. with the passage of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. If a contractor is working outside of the US and encounters the situation set forth above. that the contract administrator failed to grant the appropriate time extension. I … have prepared claims for ‘constructive acceleration’ in two power plant projects. but in the other one.” It occurred to the author that owners who refuse to issue time extensions when they are due. D’Onofrio [6]. A Government Windfall: ASBCA’s Attack on Concurrent Delays as a Basis for Constructive Acceleration. In the alternative. However. In either event. As a result of this ruling. do they have the legal right to file a constructive acceleration claim? The issue arose some time back when the author was working with English barristers on a claim in the Mideast. the US Boards were given broader jurisdiction over claims arising under government contracts. the barrister client advised that.) Subsequent to 1978. Nevertheless. and the contractor accelerated to complete the project on time in order to avoid being assessed liquidated damages. the legal doctrine of constructive acceleration remains firmly established and has developed into a well known and relatively common claim on construction projects. It was reported that. and the contractor feels it is faced with the need to accelerate to avoid incurring penalties … the failure to grant EOT’s in a timely manner can be interpreted as an instruction to accelerate [11]. its courts differ from English courts. force contractors into a Hobbesian choice. of course. we managed to get some of the money back. “In Brazil. The court awarded the cost of acceleration to the contractor [10]. While Australian law does not recognize the term “constructive acceleration. “In the Australian case of Perini Pacific v Commonwealth of Australia (1969). the owner had an implied duty to ensure that the contract administrator was properly administering the EOT provisions of the contract. commonly cited.” if a contractor can prove that the delay to the project was not caused by the contractor.the Sleeping Giant by Thomas F. “…where the contractor feels obliged to accelerate because claimed EOT’s have been rejected or are not being approved in a Is Constructive Acceleration Recognized by Courts Outside the US? The issue for this article is to respond to the above question. the author contacted a Brazilian scheduling expert and claims consultant to learn whether the concept of constructive acceleration is recognized in Brazil.” Should the owner act in some manner as to delay the project and then refuse to grant an appropriate time extension. In that case. Mr. and. “acts of prevention. the breach consisted of a refusal or failure by the certified to give any consideration at all to the contractor’s applications [9]. the contract administrator repeatedly refused to award extensions of time (“EOT”). should the contractor accelerate and then learn they are working in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the concept of constructive acceleration. then the contractor can successfully argue the owner breached their implied duties and owes the resulting damages.” In this case. “constructive acceleration. with proof of damages in the form of completion to time by expenditure greater than would otherwise have been incurred. Conclusion: Even though Australian courts have not adopted the term. their acceleration efforts. Brazil Brazil is a civil law country and decisions of courts are not published nor do they have any precedential value. the contractor may be able to pursue the claim under the “act of prevention” theory common in English law. When the author asked if the contractor had filed a notice of constructive acceleration. by W. Peters [5].” In other cases. the [owner] alleged [a] force majeure and the case went to court with no recovery of the losses [13]. recovery of costs by contractors has always been a gray zone. and the owner has no right to impose liquidated damages. they may face twin economic losses—the cost expended on timely way.” Conclusion: Brazilian law does not recognize the concept of constructive COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 5 . “English law does not recognize that legal concept. and coerce the contractor into acceleration. In one. in the Commercial Court of New South Wales. that they submitted timely time extension requests.” there is a leading court case. The court found that the owner did not live up to this obligation and the “…proven breach of the implied terms…” gave rise to a claim for damages. Stephen Dale and Kathryn T. acceleration. There appears to be little likelihood of recovery of such costs legally. Canada Canadian courts have not expressly recognized the term, “constructive acceleration,” as US courts have. One Canadian attorney commented on this in the following manner. “Consideration of “constructive acceleration” expressly by Canadian courts is rare … In reviewing Canadian cases on acceleration, those contractors which have proven facts which look remarkably like the shopping list of elements of constructive acceleration … have tended to be successful with their claims. On the other hand, if one reviews the claims which have been denied, one can easily pick out which of the elements is missing. This despite the fact that one will be hard pressed to find Canadian cases which have expressly adopted the term, “constructive acceleration,” or have adopted the five listed criteria”[14]. There are, however, two benchmark Canadian cases that firmly established a mechanism by which a contractor in a constructive acceleration situation may be able to recover. • In Morrison-Knudsen Co. Inc. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, the court found that the owner was in fundamental breach of contract respecting payments for acceleration [15]. Both the trial court and the appellate court found that (1) the owner refused to grant time extensions for both owner caused delays, as well as other delays beyond the contractor’s control; and, (2) the owner demanded on time completion of the work. As a result, the court determined that “…the appellant’s (the owner) conduct respecting payment for acceleration constituted fundamental breach (of contract).” Likewise, in W.A. Stevenson Construction (Western) Limited v. Metro Canada Limited, the court found that the owner refused to grant any times extensions when requested by the contractor, both for owner caused and excusable delay [16]. The court also determined that the owner issued demands that the contractor accelerate the work, reminded the contractor that time was of the essence of the contract and that the costs of acceleration would be at the contractor’s sole expense. The court concluded that, “In a deliberate, anticipatory breach of contract by means of a policy decision, the owner decided that the time for completion would not be extended, no matter what the cause.” Conclusion: Despite the fact that Canadian courts have not adopted the term, “constructive acceleration,” if a contractor can prove the situation met all of the six criteria set forth above, then they can claim breach of contract in order to perfect the claim and recover their acceleration costs. “Where due to the fault of the employer, the project is stopped or postponed in the course of the construction, the employer shall adopt measures to offset or reduce the losses and compensate the contractor for the losses and actual expenses recurred thereof due to stopping and idling of the labor force, changes in the transportation, removal of the machinery and equipment, overstocking of materials and building components.” The author of the private paper referred to above suggested that in situations where owner caused delay has occurred; the contractor has requested appropriate time extensions; and the owner has refused to grant extensions of time and demands on time completion; the contractor needs to obtain the owner’s demand for on time completion in writing. If all of this is done, then the contractor may be in a position to file suit for damages arguing, “directed or instructed acceleration” based on the employer’s breach of contract. It was also suggested that Chinese culture and business practice may assist in resolving such claims, as there is little tendency to pursuing disputes in litigation. Conclusion: Chinese law does not recognize constructive acceleration, but does require an owner to appropriately adjust the time of completion and pay for delay damages for owner caused delays. However, should the owner refuse to issue appropriate time extensions and demand on time completion, the contractor should insist that the on time completion instruction be put in writing. Once this is received, the contractor is in a position to seek recovery of acceleration costs, arguing that the owner breached the contract (which incorporates Chinese construction law by reference) and instructed acceleration. China The People’s Republic of China does not recognize the concept of constructive acceleration in their Contract Law of The People’s Republic of China [17]. Nor is constructive acceleration included in the Chinese Construction Contract of Construction Works (GF-1999-0201) [18]. Chinese construction law and contracts distinguish between “acceleration,” “mitigation,” and “expediting.” • Acceleration is an increase in resources and intensity of work with the aim of bringing the job in on time. Mitigation means reallocating existing resources in order to minimize cost and delay resulting from changed conditions. Expediting is a result of contractor caused delay, and results in the contractor taking measures to meet the completion date at their own expense [19]. • • • Colombia However, Article 284 of the Contract Law of The People’s Republic of China mandates the following— A private e-mail response to the author’s inquiry concerning constructive 6 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 acceleration in Colombia elicited the following response. “…there is a substantial parallel between US and Colombia, similar steps, somewhat different mix of characters and a different emphasis on all the pieces of handling claims [20].” Conclusion: Despite the fact that Colombia is a civil law nation, it appears from the above that their legal system may provide for recovery of acceleration costs in a constructive acceleration situation; provided that, the contractor complies with the six steps justifying constructive acceleration and can document each point. second point, as well as the fifth point of the six point test for constructive acceleration. This argument is counterbalanced by other Egyptian attorneys who argue that it is a well established Civil Code principle that, “the contract is the law of the parties.” Conclusion: Egyptian law does not recognize constructive acceleration. Nor does it recognize the concept of excusable delay and notice provisions may or may not be enforced. A contractor facing a constructive acceleration situation probably cannot recover acceleration costs incurred to recover lost time resulting from excusable delay situations; but may be able to recover such costs incurred in recovering lost time because of owner caused delay under a breach of contract theory. If, however, the contractor can negotiate all six conditions related to constructive acceleration into the contract the Civil Code concept that, “the contract is the law” is likely to prevail. predilection to reduce liquidated damages or penalties when actual damages are lower and acceleration can only be ordered by adding bonuses to the cost of the contract. Germany Most contracts in Germany are executed under the Allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen fur die Ausfuhrung von Bauleistgungen (VOB/B), the German contract Terms for the Execution of Construction works. The VOB/B is a preformulated set of terms and conditions designed for the addition and partial modification of German law as it applies to construction contracts [25]. There is no recognition of the concept of constructive acceleration in the VOB/B. Section 6 of the VOB/B deals with the issue of “hindrances and delay.” Should the owner hinder or delay the contractor’s performance, the contractor is obligated to give notice to the owner and the owner is obligated extend the deadline for completion the work. The contractor is also entitled to seek recovery of “reasonable damage compensation” under Clause 6 of the VOB/B, as well as § 642 of the German Civil Code. Should the owner refuse to issue time extensions and demand on time completion the contractor may be able to recover their acceleration costs. Conclusion: A contractor facing a constructive acceleration situation may be able to recover acceleration costs arguing “acts of hindrance” and breach of contract for failure to issue time extensions in a timely manner. Egypt The Arabic Republic of Egypt is a civil law nation and as such, has no case law. Construction projects, generally, are governed by Egyptian Civil Code [21]. In response to the author’s inquiry concerning the recognition of constructive acceleration under Egyptian law, one claims consultant working in Egypt responded with the following. “From my 13 years of experience in working in Egypt so far, I can generally tell you that ‘constructive acceleration’ is not recognized here. … there is also no recognition of delay analysis techniques either, so the principle of an ‘excusable delay’ (point 1 in the US conditions for contractor’s recovery…) does not exist [22].” The author has worked in Egypt on three different projects—two in Alexandria and one in Cairo—and based on this experience concurs that Egyptian Civil Code offers relief to the contractor only for owner caused delay. There is another problem concerning the concept of constructive acceleration under Egyptian Civil Code. Many attorneys argue that the Statute of Limitations renders notice provisions in Egyptian contracts unenforceable by law [23]. As such, many courts and arbitration panels ignore the notice provisions—thus eliminating part of the France France too is a civil code country, so no case law as we know it in the US exists. French Civil Code gives judges great discretion to reduce or increase contractually agreed penalties and liquidated damages. There are a number of “…cases where French courts have reduced the delay penalties to be paid by a contractor because the delay was in total or in part attributable to the behavior of others, such as either the main contractor or the owner”[24]. Based on a reading of French law, set forth in this article, the only way to accelerate the work of the project is to offer an incentive or bonus for such acceleration. Accordingly, French law does not recognize the concept of constructive acceleration. Conclusion: A contractor working on a project governed by French law who encounters delay and an owner, who refuses all requests for time extension, is better off to not accelerate the work to attempt to recover the lost time. French courts have the power and the Hong Kong Hong Kong courts, like many other Commonwealth courts, do not recognize the concept of constructive acceleration. “Claims on this basis [constructive acceleration] are common in the US, but in Hong Kong … there is no such doctrine [26].” However, they do subscribe to the legal theory of mitigation of damages, a concept that is based upon UK law. As one author pointed out, “… contractors have for many years looked to recover from employers the additional costs of implementing delay mitigation measures (additional costs to normal working excluding prolongation) even COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 7 where there was no employer’s instruction to implement such measures”[10]. Additionally, Hong Kong courts recognize the contractor’s ability to recover acceleration costs incurred as a result of owner caused delay where the owner refuses to grant time extensions. Like other courts, Hong Kong courts acknowledge this as a breach of contract. They do, however, uphold notice provisions and require that the contractor document the delay mitigation measures and costs accurately. Conclusion: Despite the lack of acceptance of the theory of constructive acceleration, contractors caught in such a situation in Hong Kong, may still be able to recover damages using the mitigation of delay or breach of contract theories. Conclusion: As much of Indian law is drawn from English common law it appears that Indian courts do not recognize the doctrine of constructive delay, but are amenable to legal arguments centered on delay mitigation, time at large, and/or breach of contractual obligations. Indonesia In another e-mail response to the author’s inquiry, Mr. Asrizal Sabri, an Indonesian project manager, responded with the information that Indonesian laws recognize the right of contractors to recover damages resulting from acceleration resulting from owner caused delay or force majeure events [29]. Reference was made to Keppres No. 80 (Republic of Indonesia Laws) in support of this statement [30]. Keppres No. 80 was the Indonesian government’s attempt to align their procurement process with those of other nations and, as such, the government imported legal and contractual concepts from many other countries. The e-mail response also pointed out that for a contractor to recover such costs they will need to obtain written documentation that the owner has demanded acceleration. Conclusion: Although it is not clear which legal theory contractors may rely upon to recover constructive acceleration costs, what appears to be clear is that if the contractor can prove excusable delay, the owner’s refusal to grant time extensions, and the owner’s demand that the contractor take action to recover the lost time, then the contractor may have a legal right to recover damages. India In response to the author’s inquiry concerning the recognition of constructive acceleration in Indian courts, the following was provided: “Contractor is entitled to acceleration with costs when/if: … Schedule is delayed due to force majeure and client requires original end date to be met … Client is direct cause of delay to schedule, but still requires original date to be met… There is no general (national) law … which specifically prescribes when a contractor can, or cannot claim acceleration costs. [27]” Additionally, Indian courts recognize the “time at large” concept, wherein if there is an act of hindrance by the owner or their agents, or force majeure events, then a time extension is owed to the contractor. Should the owner refuse to grant such a time extension, then it can be said that time is at large and as there is no longer a date from which liquidated damages can be calculated, the owner loses their right to impose liquidated damages [28]. If the owner demands on time completion the contractor may be able to recover on the basis of breach of contract. provision in those clauses for the payment of pure acceleration costs. … A mere voluntary decision by the contractor to accelerate is not enough to found a claim for constructive acceleration. There must be some element of undue coercion by the employer, which compels the contractor to accelerate [34].” Conclusion: It is not clear if Irish courts will adopt the concept of constructive acceleration. But, if a contractor can prove delay entitlement; the owner’s refusal to allow an extension of time; coercion by the owner forcing the contractor to accelerate work; and actual damages, then costs may be recoverable under the “loss and expense or damages” clauses of RIAI, GDLA 82 or IEI contract. Additionally, since Irish courts are heavily influenced by English courts, the legal concepts of breach of contract, delay mitigation and/or time at large may also assist in recovery of damages. Malaysia Many projects in are constructed using the PAM, the JCT, or the ICE for of contract [35, 36, 37]. As such, Malaysian contracts recognize the legal concepts of act of prevention or act of hindrance and time at large. The Malaysian Federal Court in Sim Chio Huat v Wong Ted Fui dealt with a case where the contract had a liquidated damages provision but did not have a time extension clause [38]. The court ruled that the owner’s delay in providing the site and the issuance of extra work orders operated to set time at large and render inoperative the liquidated damages clause. Mr. Dennis Oon Soon Lee, a Malaysian construction manager, has analyzed the issue of constructive acceleration under Malaysian law and concluded that this concept is not recognized. However, he also determined the following. “…where it can be shown that the contract administrator has unreasonably or unnecessarily delayed the grant [of] extensions of time, there is little difficulty in establishing that this is a breach of contract by the employer. In cases which deal with the failure to grant an extension of time and the effect that this has on the liquidated damages Ireland Many projects in Ireland are contracted for under RIAI, GDLA 82, or IEI form of contract [31, 32, 33]. None of these contracts expressly recognize the concept of constructive acceleration. However, all of them provide for recovery of “loss and expense or damages,” as well as time extensions. “Some causes of delay may also entitle the contractor to claim loss and expense or damages, under RIAI/GDLA clauses 2 and/or 29(b) [as well as under IEI clause 44] … However … there is no 8 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 Oon Chee Kheng in a thorough article on time extensions and liquidated damages under Malaysian law. should the owner refuse to issue appropriate time extensions. subject to the provisions of Egyptian Civil Code then a contractor facing a constructive acceleration situation probably cannot recover acceleration costs incurred to recover lost time because of excusable delay situations.” However. time becomes ‘at large’ and the contractor is given a reasonable time in which to complete Peak v. Like Malaysian courts (discussed above) courts in Singapore recognize the concepts of act of prevention or act of hindrance. and an honestly held view or assessment that no extension of time is due. and the SAICE [47. acceleration costs may be recoverable in accordance with the earlier discussion of Egyptian law above. if a contractor can prove entitlement to a time extension and refusal of the owner to issue the time extensions warranted by the contract. They do.O.. if a contractor can prove entitlement to a time extension and refusal of the owner to issue the time extensions warranted by the contract. this is strictly beyond the jurisdiction of the Engineer/Architect/S. when working under a FIDIC contract. … The refusal to grant an EOT can’t amount to a ‘deemed’ instruction to accelerate. Should the contractor be working on a privately funded contract.” In a situation where a contractor is working on a privately financed contract subject to Egyptian Civil Code and faces constructive acceleration situation. ‘Loss and expense’ and ‘costs’ are both contractual financial compensation mechanisms and the Engineer/Architect/S. then the contractor may be able to recover such damages.provisions. but may be able to recover such costs incurred in recovering lost time because of owner caused delay under a breach of contract theory. acknowledge the legal concepts of acts of prevention/hindrance. this becomes a directed acceleration under Clause 8 of the FIDIC documents. it is not unexpected to find that they do not recognize this concept. However. Thus.” Conclusion: Malaysian courts do not recognize the constructive acceleration legal theory. Public works project in Oman are subject to this latter set of conditions [41]. That a distinction needs to be made between an express refusal or continued failure to deal promptly with an extension of time application on the part of the contract administrator. in particular. as noted by Mr. however. NEC. and the same can only be pursued in arbitration or litigation.’ Under this doctrine if there is no provision for an extension of time or none is granted when it should have been and if an employer ‘prevents’ through his own actions the contractor from completing within the specified time for completion. As the ICE documents were developed by an English professional society. 48. Conclusion: Oman law does not recognize the concept of constructive acceleration as such. it appears to be accepted that the said failure by the contract administrator is a breach of contract by the employer. Conclusion: The courts of Singapore do not recognize the constructive acceleration legal theory. or the PSSCOC form of contract [43].O.. Thus. plus damages incurred by the contractor’s acceleration efforts.e. Singapore Projects in Singapore are frequently constructed under the JCT. it has been pointed out that under FIDIC. ICE. time at large and breach of contract. can only certify these arising from constructive acceleration if there are contractual provisions to that effect [40]. (If such an order is issued. Oman Oman’s legal system is based on civil code principles and. time at large. South Africa South African law and courts do not recognize the doctrine of constructive acceleration. “It remains to be said that even if ‘loss and expense’ or ‘costs’ of constructive acceleration is claimable. 49]: “The engineer owes a duty of care towards the contractor in administering COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 9 . however. However. The contractor can assert the argument that the delay was an “act of prevention” and time is now at large (i. However.) “Under English law one of the primary areas of concern with respect to these provisions would be the potential applicability of the doctrine of ‘acts of prevention. then the contractor may be able to recover such damages but will have to do so in arbitration or litigation. the contractor is not compelled to accelerate their work unless so ordered in writing by the owner. plus the damages incurred by the contractor’s acceleration efforts. None of these contract forms recognize or acknowledge the concept of constructive acceleration [44]. As many contracts in Oman are executed under FIDIC contracts a contractor in this situation is not compelled to accelerate if they are delayed by act of the owner. They do. Liquidated damages fall away [42]. McKinney (1969) 1 BLR 111 (CA). The issue however is when can the contract administrator be considered to have unreasonably or unnecessarily delayed the grant of an extension of time [39]. Oman adopted a form of contract general conditions based on the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (“FIDIC”) documents. there no longer exists either a completion date or liquidated damages) and the contractor is free to finish the work within a reasonable period of time. acknowledge the legal concepts of acts of prevention/hindrance. and breach of contract [45]. Privately financed contracts in Oman are generally governed by Egyptian Civil Code. Constructive acceleration is not a recognized concept under the FIDIC documents as the FIDIC document were adapted from the Institute of Civil Engineers (“ICE”) documents. time at large and breach of contract. Egyptian Civil Code. “The argument adopted by many contractors in South Africa namely that a rejection to an EOT request which the contractor believes is correct amounts to an instruction to accelerate and finish on time is simply incorrect. JBCC. A claim for constructive acceleration under English law must be based on ordinary principles for breach of contract and damages”[46]. Mr. then the defaulting party or parties responsible could be liable to pay compensation.” Numerous other schedule and schedule delay texts out of the UK agree with the statement that the doctrine of constructive acceleration is not yet recognized in UK courts [56]. Stanley West. It would appear. Sri Lankan Precedent: Of particular interest is the report of a hallmark case in Sri Lanka involving the construction of irrigation canals. that the contractor must obtain the owner’s demand for on time completion in writing as South African courts apparently do not accept a “deemed” instruction to accelerate. but 10 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . the “…the engineer has a duty to determine the extension of time that the contractor is ‘fairly’ entitled to. However. the circumstances under which such damages may be recovered are not known. if some action of the owner or the engineer constitutes an act of hindrance or an act of prevention.” Conclusion: Notwithstanding the fact that UAE law does not recognize the doctrine of constructive acceleration. What makes this case of particular interest is that the law of the contract was Sri Lankan law and Sri Lanka is one of the few countries outside South Africa having a Roman-Dutch legal foundation [51]. the engineer must act impartially within the terms of the contract…” Mr. then they could be found in United Kingdom (“UK”) In a classic bit of understatement. Chris Larkin.” Conclusion: Recovery of constructive acceleration damages is potentially possible in Sri Lanka. the following was reported. has gone on record by declaring the doctrine of constructive acceleration a “fictitious doctrine … not founded on consensual or quasi-contractual basis… and would not be acceptable in English Courts and Commonwealth Courts [55].” He noted also that Article 282 of the Civil Code states that: “Any harm done to another shall render the perpetrator. In that case the contractor was forced to spend a large sum on duplicating his temporary equipment because of the failure of the principal agent to award an extension of time timeously. they would most likely subscribe to the concepts of act of hindrance or act of prevention. advised that the doctrine of constructive acceleration is not recognized in the UAE [53]. even if he is a minor. Should the owner then demand on time completion thus causing the contractor to accelerate their work. United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) In a short but very informative article. He noted. time and large and breach of contract. it is possible for a contractor to recover damages under the UAE Civil Code if the contractor follows the requirements of the contract concerning notice and time extension requests and can prove that the engineer failed in his duty to act impartially. for example. damages will arise which should be recoverable as they flow from the breach of contract. Thus. Larking suggested that if the engineer did not perform their duty fairly. R.the contract to determine such [time] extension and is obliged. violation of Article 246. The ICC Arbitration awarded the contractor some US $56 million being approximately 95 percent of its proven costs of constructive acceleration. In exercising this duty. Past President of AACE International’s Caribbean Section responded—“Two of the senior lawyers who deal with contracts … are not familiar with the term and as such have no knowledge of any court case or other claims dealing with ‘constructive acceleration’ [52]. Trinidad and Tobago In response to the author’s inquiry concerning recognition of the doctrine of constructive acceleration in Trinidad and Tobago. Pickles wrote “The English courts have been a little slow at recognizing a situation where a claim for constructive acceleration would be relevant [54]. with a law degree and arbitration qualifications. It is the engineer and not the employer who must determine and grant the extension. Professor Ian Duncan Wallace. However. the failure of the engineer to properly administer the time extension provisions of the contract is likely a breach of contract.” Conclusion: Since the laws of Trinidad and Tobago are based in English law. Larkin opined that this applies both to the parties to the contract.” Conclusion: Based in this principle. to carry out this function. 5 of 1985 (the Civil Code) “…contracts must be performed in a manner consistent with the requirements of good faith…” Mr. it is presumed that even though Trinidadian courts do not recognize constructive acceleration as a legal doctrine.D. not entitled. contact with competent legal counsel is required—sooner rather than later. editor of Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts. 4th Edition. “…if there was an act of bad faith that resulted in the contractor incurring additional costs. is the owner and engineer’s duty to administer the contract in accordance with the terms of the contract. however. liable to make good the harm. based upon the above information. that under the FIDIC Redbook. … The engineer is obliged to reach a decision and convey this decision to the contractor within a reasonable period of time after the extra or additional work or other special circumstances have arisen [50]. but also to the person who has the power to award extensions of time and certify payment application. however. He goes on to suggest that. an English Chartered Engineer. Larking notes that Article 246 of the UAE Federal Law No. Mr. the owner or engineer refuses to grant an appropriate time extension. Should a contractor begin to become involved in such a situation. Mr. the contractor is Sri Lanka Not much is known concerning constructive acceleration in Sri Lanka. What is acknowledged.” In fact. Ralph C. and breach of contract. Nagle. 60]. Construction Delay Claims.. “Under the Housing Grants. That is. ASBCA 5509. the first step should be to refer the dispute to adjudication to seek a decision by a neutral decision maker. Rather. ASBCA 7345. Administration of Government Contracts. England. which typically takes a very short period of time. whenever the owner or engineer denies a time extension and attempts to make the contractor recover the lost time. Thomas J. contractors faced with a constructive acceleration situation can seek adjudication. then under the legal concepts of prevention. then the claim in most countries will most likely have to go to arbitration or litigation. Construction Scheduling: Preparation. for example. And. Callahan. In the absence of this. if time is not important to the project owner. John. 2nd Edition. COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 11 . Inc. 11th Edition. The common theme supporting these alternative legal theories seems to be the following. contractors who have been constructively accelerated because of the refusal of the owner to grant time extensions when warranted followed by coercion to force on time completion. Construction and Regeneration Act. 4th Edition. If there is no clause providing for time extensions then the owner cannot be said to have breached their obligation by not granting such extensions. Sweet & Maxwell. 1962 BCA ¶ 13. Hurlbut and Mark J. at least under this name. § 7-050. London. 1995. Wiley Law Publications. 445 – 458. contractors may recover some or all of the damages incurred using a number of other legal theories. and Michael T. given the problems with acceleration… [58]. Mechanical Utils.C. the contractor did actually accelerate and can document their actions and the resulting damage. But in most of the countries listed above. George Washington University. See Cibinic. Co.8.10(B). pp. 4. D. 268 – 271.” Contract Provides for Extensions of Time—The contract must have language which allows the owner to extend time under certain circumstances. Liability and Claims. Lewis Constr. Fixed Period Requirement—The contract must have a Time of the Essence Clause and a Time of Completion requirement accompanied by some sort of late completion damages clause. New York. the owner must have the legal ability under the contract to grant time extension. This is probably the right way to go. time at large and breach of contract. It is also noted that one English court case within the last few years came very close to acknowledging constructive acceleration. the contractor accelerates and incurs actual costs. Washington. If the contractor in such a situation can prove these points.. However. and Electronic & Missile Facilities. Driscoll. as one author pointed out. See. 60-2 BCA ¶ 2732. In Motherwell Bridge Construction Ltd v Micafil Vacuumtechnik.. § 7. ASBCA 9031. The owner issued no time extension or less time than should have been allowed. Excusable delay was encountered. 1964 BCA ¶ 4338.” Conclusion: Even though English courts do not currently recognize the concept of constructive acceleration. Inc. and the contract is under the jurisdiction of the Housing Grants. 3. Conclusions I n all countries outside the US included in this survey. as most countries deal with this sort of claim in the context of breach of contract (as did the US prior to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978). After all. 1992. rather than to the court or an arbitrator after completion [57].. Barry B. Stephen B. Bramble. Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts. 2. coercion to obtain completion earlier than should be been allowed. the court ruled that “… the claimant was entitled to the costs of the measures taken to achieve completion earlier than contractually necessary [59. contractors seeking recovery of constructive acceleration costs will need to document acts of prevention or hindrance. Groff. unlike the US. then they should be able to recover their acceleration costs. the concept of constructive acceleration is not recognized. this is not a claim that can be negotiated to settlement on the job site. John M. Nash and James F. pages 178182. the contractor may be able to recover their acceleration costs. Wickwire. Construction and Regeneration Act. 2006. Arbitration or Litigation is Required – It appears from the results of this survey that. the contractor now has the option to address this uncertainty at an early stage by referring his claim for an extension of time to an adjudicator during the course of the contract.. pp. then the contractor is simply held to a standard of completing the work within a “reasonable time. Notice was provided to the owner and appropriate time extension requests were submitted. If a contractor finds themselves in a constructive acceleration situation. see also.260. they appear to be moving in this direction.pressured or coerced to make up the lost time. The owner threatened or coerced the contractor into accelerating their work in order to recover some or all of the lost time.” Thus. Meet the Six Step Checklist for Constructive Acceleration— Contractors seeking recovery of acceleration costs resulting from an owner’s refusal to grant a time extension probably have to demonstrate the following to the trier of fact. Finally. §6. ◆ REFERENCES 1. The contractor provided notice to the owner that they considered the owner’s actions to be a directive to accelerate. 3rd Edition.. 3rd Edition. 41. Oon Soon Lee. 2010. LexisNexis Butterworths. Extension of Time and Liquidated Damages in Construction Contracts. sponsored by The Institution of Engineers. Khen. 18. B. April 20. Issued by the Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China and the Bureau of Industrial and Commercial Administration of the People’s Republic of China on December 24. revised and reprinted October 1990. 12. Egyptian Civil Code. The Singapore Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract. Malaysia. 1998. AACE International. an unpublished paper prepared in response to the author’s inquiry concerning constructive acceleration in China.. 13. South Africa. Universiti Teknologi. 2005. 7th Edition. Oman. 12 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . Osing. and Andries P. Summer 2009. April 22. Stefan. 5th Post Graduate Conference on Construction Industry Development. Feature Article. 2010. New York. E-mail response from Madhu Ponnappan Pillai. Section 6. dated October 21. 44. October 18.C. 2008. 1998. 35. 6. 2nd Edition. Shutte. No. Winter 2005/6. Distruption and Acceleration Costs. Dennis. Morgantown. Dennis.5. Sheif El Haggan. John M. 7. E-mail response from Waleed El Nemr. E-mail response from John Smith. Madrid. 16. 1980. 2nd Edition. Patrick. 2010 and presentation slides by Dr. Weaver. Maritz.C. Delay. 2004. JianHua.A. Madrid. M. Guppy (1838) 3 M&W 387. Irvin E. June 2003. E-mail response from Asrizal Sabri. 113 (B. 2005. 2003. Private e-mail communication from Aldo Dorea Mattos. 19. Andrew and Ian Bailey. 37. Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland. 4th Edition. The Traps and Pitfalls of Construction Delay Claims in Ontario. Colombia. See also: Roberts v. Cork. The Institution of Civil Engineers Contracts. IBA Conference. A Practical Approach to Calculate Acceleration Costs on Construction Projects in South Africa. Sheif El Haggan. Public Contract Law Journal. citing Holme v. Construction Acceleration in China. Acceleration Claims on Construction Projects in Ireland. pages 73-77. Brookings on Building Contracts. 21. 39. D. 42. April 25. Ipoh. Cremean.C. paper presented at a seminar on Construction Contracts and Arbitration. Lyle. International Construction Claims: Avoiding & Resolving Disputes. 1983. Rawling. May 3. Oon Chee. Malaysia (Perak Branch). Ontario. Time and Acceleration Issues Affecting International Construction Contracts: The German Approach. 22.8. South Melbourne. 2005. 2010. supra. FIDIC Middle East Contract Users Conference. 45. Toronto. 38. 28. 46. 1999. Whitten. modeled after the JCT form of contract but not updated as frequently. 26. 11. 33. 15. 1999. Lang Michener LLP. FIDIC Middle East Contract Users Conference. Dr. 27 C. Constructive Acceleration – A Valid Claim? Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors. Lyden. thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Science in Construction Contract Management. McGraw Hill Publications. Conditions of Contract for use in Connection with Works of Civil Engineering Construction. The Malaysian Institute of Architects Form. 20. Oon. Bury Commissioners (1870) LR 5 CP 310. Stephenson. Unpublished paper prepared by legal counsel at Trowers & Hamlyns. WV. Ltd. 27.S. March 16-18. 2010. 25.A. Knutson. 29. February 25. 2010. 2004. Department of Quantity Surveying and Construction Management. 2005. Articles 646 to 667. 2009. 2008 and presentation slides by Dr. 1999. Volume 39. An English Lawyer’s View of the New FIDIC Rainbow – Where is the Pot of Gold? Privately produced paper. Malaysia. a recognized US construction claims consultant and testifying expert. Robert. and Michael H. 17. 2009. Delay Mitigation. How French Courts’ Discretionary Power to Reduce Delay Penalities and Liquidated Damages May Affect Acceleration of Works in Construction Projects. 32. Bloemfontein. Rawling & Associates. 1983. paper presented at the IBA Annual Conference. Soon Lee. John B. Muscat. Victoria. Institution of Engineers of Ireland.. 2009. 2. Concurrency Causation Commonsense and Compensation. AACE International Transactions.C. Abu Dhabi. Agreement and Conditions of Contract for Building Work for use by Government Departments and Local Authorities. April 20. Indonesian project manager. Article 388. Mosaic Project Services Pty Ltd. 1988.. London. Westwood v. 24. Virginie A. 2010. August 2009. AACE Regional Director and project management consultant in India.R. Zhang.) 1987 Adopted and promulgated by the Second Session of the Ninth National People’s Congress on March 15. (3d) 186 (B. New York. Molloy.J.C. 41 U. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Australia. 14. Ireland. 9. March 1982.S. July 2002. 31.. Brian E. 23. The Joint Contract Tribunal Standard Forms of Contract. 1 MLI 151. Brian E. Presidential Decree Number 80 of 2003. Grenier.E. Extension of Time and Acceleration Claims.L. §§ 601-613. 2010. paper given to a meeting of the Society of Construction Law and the Society of Chartered Surveyors. University of the Free State. 2010. March 14. March 2006. Damien J.. International Construction Projects Committee. Aldo Mattos Consulting. Glenn. 43. Abu Dhabi. currently retired and living in Bogota. 36. April 20. IBA Conference. 34. Procurement Law. Faculty of Build Environment. Session on Time and Acceleration Issues Affecting International Construction Contracts. Secretary of State for India (1863) 1 New Rep 262. 8. What is Constructive Acceleration? MasterBuilders KwaZulu-Natal. 30. 40.L. Colaiuta. Madrid. Winter 2010. February 25.) 1978. 3rd Edition. See also Richter.R. Bryce... Shnookal. 10. . Past President. and A. dated April 29.com % % % % % Interfaces Directly with Database Hundreds of Reports & Analyses Advanced Longest Path Analysis Built-in Report & Editing Facility Drill-down from Dashboard to P6 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 13 . Loots.. Gibson. is with Navigant Consulting. and Lowsley. Pickles. 60. March 2002. Roger. of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act of 1996. 56.org/archives. Referring to Section 108. Caletka. Winter. retrieved from http://cmguide. Jeremy and Jacqueline Mimms. See also. 5th Edition. The Construction and Building Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. ABOUT THE AUTHOR James G.com Now: “If schedules needed analysis. What is the difference between Primavera would have included it. CFCC FRICS. January 31. Zack. What Is Constructive Acceleration? Master Builders KwaZulu-Natal news. Construction Management Guide. Baker & McKenzie. A Legal Analysis of Some Schedule-Related Disputes in Construction Contracts. 55. London. 2006. September 18. The New Engineering Contract. 2002.n He can be contacted by sending e-mail to: jim. 54. 51.. This Act has more recently been amended by the Local Democracy.zack@navigantconsulting. P. Constructive Acceleration Demands Clear Intentions. 2008. Keane. The Joint Building Contracts Committee. The Civil Engineering Contractor. London. 11th Edition. Atlanta. Construction Delays. Stephen and Christopher Linnett. England. Georgia Tech. 2008. Jr. London. 2010. 50.. Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts. R. London. Institution of Civil Engineers. 58.C.. January 2006. 48. South Africa. August 2009. Ltd. September 2007. 1985. Chris. Extensions of Time and Prolongation Claims. 49. Inc. 1995. for example. RICS Business Services Limited. Ndekugri. 2008. § 7-050. 53. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.F. Chapter 20. Engineering and Construction Law. Issaka. About Time – Delay Analysis in Construction. Juta & Co. E-mail from Stanley West. Economic Development and Construction Act of 2009. AACE International Caribbean Section. September 2007. 1982. WileyBlackwell. November 1995. Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts. which requires that a contract specifically “…include provision in writing…” to this effect. Right to Refer Disputes to Adjudication. Acceleration Claims. TCC. Part II. The South African Institution of Civil Engineers. Cape Town. P. 59.” reviewing your P6 schedule and reviewing your P6 XER file? Everything See more at http://ScheduleAnalyzer. 57.47. Binnington. Sri Lankan Precedent.D. 52.J. See. Sweet & Maxwell. 81 Con LR 44. . are poorly understood by the courts and schedule analysts alike. “a risk allocation construction delay cases. the other a damages and the owner is not entitled to the complicated fact patterns causing the contractor risk event—the liquidated damages. although a nondelay.” C COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 15 .TECHNICAL ARTICLE OFFSETTING DELAYS — THE OWNER’S FRIEND John C. 22]. The follows: principle that operates to distribute costs stakes are high. This is especially true in cases where it is possible for the owner to argue sequential delays by the contractor should offset earlier delays caused by the owner. type of concurrent delay. thus strengthening the owners bargaining position and allowing for the popularity of offsetting delays claims. owners of construction projects often use their superior bargaining power to strike a deal better than the facts or the law would permit. An earlier version of this article was first presented as manuscript CDR. forensic schedule analysis. Calif. Concurrency has been important issue in virtually all concurrency. CFCC PSP Concurrency is primarily a legal theory dating from the early 1900s (although it was not called concurrency then). Livengood. so long as the effects of them are felt at the same time. effects of which are felt at the compensable time extension is usually Offsetting delays are an extreme same time. offsetting delay and allocation of responsibility impossible to sequential delay determine. This article discusses the most recent technical issues associated with concurrent delay. This is generally referred to as offsetting concurrent delays. because if associated with contemporaneous delays “Concurrent Delay is the there are two delays and they can be on a status quo basis [6].609 at the 2011 AACE International Annual Meeting in Anaheim. inconsistently applied by courts and The author’s definition of oncurrent delay is an experts [15. then the operates in this manner because events at the same time —one contractor is not entitled to delay historically the courts could not untangle an owner risk event. hence more findings of concurrent delay [2]. Yet. The term granted [9]. including offsetting delays characterized as. During this period. Concurrent delays. judicial decisions reflected a careful dissection of the then available CPMs schedules that unfortunately generally made detailed Key Words: Concurrent delay. Savvy owners use this lack of understanding when negotiating settlements of delay claims by contractors. These delays have the special name of offsetting concurrent delays. Most of the contemporary concurrency law we rely upon in the US was developed in the 1960s through the 1980s. particularly delays associated with performance of non-critical work. They arise “concurrent delay” is often used when the two delays meet the criteria of to describe the situation where Abstract: When dealing with contractor delay claims. and shows how confusion has made the legal rulings on concurrent delay unpredictable.” Concurrency occurrence of two or more delay considered concurrent. making both delays non-compensable. concurrency as a legal theory Figure 2 illustrates a typical The Offsetting Delay Issue that is poorly understood and concurrency situation. The author has made some updates and revisions since that presentation and they are included with this printing. two or more delay events arise at different times. not just the period during which any individual delay may have occurred [4]. the same basic fact pattern will be used in figures in this article: The project was a two-building complex with a planned simultaneous start on both Buildings A and B. there was a joint two month commissioning period leading to substantial completion. The alleged concurrent delay must be involuntary [13]. but one may be a force majeure event [6]. To illustrate. Under the following definition. 2. typical of how the offsetting delays are negotiated: An aggrieved owner and delayed contractor hold a negotiating session after construction is complete on a two-building complex. Either would have delayed the project even if the other delay did not exist [16]. the term concurrent does not carry the generally understood meaning of. concurrent delays may occur during any part of the project performance period. as described in the AACE International Recommended Practice 29R-03 (2011) Forensic Schedule Analysis Practice Guide [FSAPG 29R-03].” Rather. the delays that are being looked at and balanced against each other can occur at any time during the project. What’s Required for Concurrent Delay While FSAPG 29R-03 quotes five definitions of concurrent delay.2 [1]. all of which are needed for a concurrent delay. The owner reasoned that even had the delay to Building A not occurred. Two or more delays that are the contractual responsibility of different parties. concurrent means under this construction the impact at the end of the project is the same for each delay [19]. the FSAPG 29R-03 defines seven criterion. 4. “at the same time. but occur at widely separated times. Both buildings had planned a ninemonth duration—they were on co-critical paths and both actually took 10 months to complete prior to commissioning. it does not adopt any of them. The owner offered a noncompensable time extension of one month. the total project would have been delayed a month because of the contractor’s delay on Building B. as listed below: 1. the owner believed that unrelated delays of one month associated with the contractor’s poor performance in completing mechanical work on Building B resulting in a 10month duration. Nevertheless. When both buildings were complete. which balanced out the initial delay on Building A. not necessarily at the same time. Two or more delays that are unrelated. We will return to this timing problem after discussing the more general requirements for concurrency.Figure 1 — Concurrent Delay with Offsetting Delays Recognized concurrency. Figure 1 depicts the following scenario. 3.” As the term is used in many cases. independent [6]. resulting in an actual 10month duration for that building. Rather. “The period of concurrency is the period of project performance. 16 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . The owner acknowledges that it had delayed site access for one month on Building A. Essentially. Subsection 4. . None of the delays were voluntary and none were easily curable—textbook concurrency. Each delay. 7. delayed because the specialized equipment and crews needed for that building were unavailable. must independently delay the critical path [12].Figure 2 — Concurrent Delay During Same Measurement Period 5. each of which absent the other. the events were on the critical path. delayed actual substantial completion. absent the other. Building B was initially Figure 3 — Concurrent Delay Along a Single Critical Path COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 17 . i. The delays must occur during or impact the same time analysis period. and. 6. Building A had a one month delay because of owner-caused site access. Figure 2 depicts a typical concurrent delay situation. The delays. The work associated with the alleged concurrent delay must be substantial and not easily curable.e. most delay experts now routinely identify concurrency.3 [1]. There are two concurrent causes of delay to 18 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . as to be unusable. For expert analysts. one party will allege there was a delay. also to Building A. the concurrent delay must be involuntary is simply a reflection that a voluntary delay otherwise meeting the concurrency criteria would be characterized as pacing. As discussed below. 10]. The fourth and fifth criterion. and the other party will respond with an allegation of concurrency. added by FSAPG 29R-03 in the 2011 edition. and. At the same time and unrelated to the owner’s delay. The solution is to look at the causes of the delay. The party initially alleging concurrency bears the burden of proof for establishing concurrency [8]. Concurrency in these situations is more closely associated with the method of activity representation in the CPM network itself. The sixth criterion requires that both alleged delays must be on the critical path. So the test is that both delays have to be on the as-built critical path. Essentially. this matter is one of the key issues related to offsetting delays. Criterion 4.Figure 4 — Concurrent Delay Under the Functional Approach With Two Delays Within the Same Measurement Period The first three of the above criteria are familiar to all who have encountered concurrent delays and are generally reflected in the usually cited definitions. even in the presence of the other delay. The seventh criterion — the requirement that the delays be in the same time period — is also discussed later in this article. and the fact that such networks are only approximations of the real logic connections between activities. Criterion 6 means you cannot just subtract one of the delays to see if the other affects completion because subtracting one of the delays changes the critical path and could make other activity sequences critical [8]. there is a subtle difference. are common sense additions. Criterion 5 reflects the practical reality that neither an owner nor contractor should be allowed to claim concurrency if the alleged concurrent delay is trivial. For example. Concurrency is generally an affirmative defense initiated after there has been an allegation of delay [3. or lack thereof. Lowest float or negative float Other Concurrency Considerations FSAPG 29R-03 also discusses several other essential issues associated with concurrency the analyst must consider when performing an evaluation. They include: The first issue is the need for cocritical paths in order to have concurrency. Such a schedule would be so large. Typically. as part of their initial analysis. Co-critical paths are not required as concurrency usually occurs when there is only a single critical path [6]. 6. • • • Single or co-critical paths. it is almost always unnecessary and always unwieldy to put all the relationships into a schedule. which is discussed extensively in the FSAPG 29R03 in Subsection 4. Equally important and discussed only briefly in the FSAPG 29R-03 is the burden of proof associated with concurrency. much of the work of establishing or rebutting a concurrency argument revolves around the proof of these issues. As a practical matter. FSAPG 29R03 is written to reflect that identification of concurrency is often undertaken as part of the typical schedule delay analysis. on a project with a single critical path starting with the first activity “mobilization. Then the party asserting the original delay often presents its analysis showing a lack of concurrency. Cause or effect. As a result. even on a moderate sized job.” the owner is unable to provide site access on the required date to Building A. however. This is almost identical to the second criterion that requires either would delay the project absent the other. as shown in figure 3. the contractor is unable to mobilize its crews and equipment. it asks if you can have concurrent delays when there is only one critical path? The answer is Yes. but the effects of these delays do not appear until the end of the seventh day.Figure 5 — No Concurrency Delay Under the Literal Approach With Two Delays Separated by One Day the single critical path. such a level of detail is unnecessary in a CPM even if it is necessary to identify and to determine concurrency. even if other secondary paths are late with regard to a contractual milestone. The negative float approach has a certain advantage in that contractors often manage activities with negative float more closely and recovery of these activities is essential to the recovery of project delay. The issue is so fundamental that FSAPG 29R-03 identifies it as an essential consideration in five of its nine delay analysis methodologies [1]. but this author believes that it is generally best to measure concurrency at the point the delay is manifested on the critical path—at the end of the seventh day in the example above. This theory supports the application of offsetting delays since any delay to negative activities would be a critical path delay. Literal Concurrency. The lowest float path theory provides for criticality on the longest path only.D. Under the negative float theory. The best solution is to recognize there is no actual delay at an activity level until the activity fails to complete on time. This is often impossible.2. Under this theory. Is the concurrency being discussed associated with the event that causes the delay. These two causes could be depicted as separate activities in the CPM network prior to start of Building A critical path. however. The alternative would be to investigate the timing of each of the causative elements associated with the alleged delays. all paths shorter than the longest path (even those with negative total float) have positive total float with respect to the longest path and are therefore non-critical. assume a schedule activity with a planned duration of seven days has slow productivity and extends for another three days for a total duration of 10 days. Regarding the third issue. FSAPG 29R-03 also identifies that such an investigation may be impacted by the placement of measuring periods since the causative events may occur long before the delay appears. Subsection 4. Under the Functional approach. Simply put. Closely related to this issue is the second issue of cause or effect. The negative float theory assumes criticality of any activity that has negative total float relative to a contractual milestone. it asks how far apart in time can would-be concurrent delays be? This concept and terminology was developed in FSAPG 29R-03 (2007) and while it had never been separately identified as an element of concurrency. FSAPG 29R-03 identifies that most schedule delay analysts and FSAPG 29R03 itself generally follows lowest float path theory.2 has an extensive discussion of the fundamental issue of least float or negative float as it relates to criticality. It is sufficient to recognize there are two events (otherwise meeting the seven criteria) causing a delay. When is the delay for purposes of determining concurrency? FSAPG 29R-03 does not identify a preferred method in this situation. The difference between these two theories has a significant impact on determining concurrency. FSAPG 29R-03. any activities with negative float occurring during the measurement period are potential candidates for concurrency. This theory reduces the potential application of offsetting delays. or the manifestation of the delay itself? This often appears where there are noncritical delays that lead to a critical path delay. For example. The delays were earlier. However. a detailed examination is still required to look at the causes of the delays since they affect the consideration of pacing and voluntariness. the delays must occur in the same analysis measurement period. The delay does not manifest itself until the activity fails to be completed on the seventh day. This means that a delay by the owner in the beginning of COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 19 . it has often been an underlying issue in court cases [14]. Same Time Period Perhaps the most controversial and at the same time most important new concept relating to concurrency in FSAPG 29R-03 are the conflicting approaches of Functional v. so the alleged delays must start on the same day. Figure 6 shows the implications of the placement of the measurement period and the alleged delays. Once this evaluation has been made. Despite best efforts. see figure 5. If the measurement period was an hour. otherwise identical to the previous one. As previously mentioned. on a day-to-day basis. but a measurement period of that can be as long as the entire project. This approach reflects the reality of the monthly update. Under the Functional approach a delay in the first two weeks of a monthly measurement period is concurrent with a two week delay at the end of that same period. Further. If one of the delay events starts prior to the other event. Under the Literal approach the concurrent events must start at the same time. but need not be of identical duration. Since most construction schedules are updated or intended to be updated monthly. resulting in concurrent delays. in order to establish the basic seven elements of concurrency. as might occur in certain planning projects. it seems absurd to then disregard this detail in characterizing non-simultaneous delays as concurrent. monitored. FSAPG 29R-03 recognizes the measurement period for most schedules is a day. the same rule applies. Yet. the delays. In most cases. In Scenario 2. If the dividing line between measurement periods falls between the two delays. the two delays fall in the same measurement period. In Scenario 1. as it is in shut-down or outage projects. always occur within the same measurement period. the approach holds that if the two delays occur in the same period and other seven criteria identified above are met. The differences between these two opposing approaches are far-reaching. The Literal approach also has advantages and disadvantages. so it is not unreasonable to measure to that accuracy. the analyst usually investigates the events surrounding the alleged delays in detail. the Functional approach will generate more days of concurrent delay because the time period (generally a month) is relatively large. While perfect simultaneity is impossible. the first event creates float in the second event preventing it from being on the critical path [18]. It assumes that both planned and actual activity measurement is accurate to within one day. The Functional approach is closely aligned with an evaluation period that often coincides with schedule updates by the contractor. But the Functional approach also has its disadvantages. typical CPM schedules are developed. see figure 4. and updated with a planned accuracy of a day. Offsetting concurrent delays. they cannot start at exactly the same time. as we will return to in a few paragraphs. or a week. The location of the start and end of the measurement period used in the analysis has a significant impact on the determination of concurrency. assuming the other concurrency criterion are met. records from the field are often incomplete and do not measure events or progress with daily accuracy. there is concurrency. as well as the inherent unreliability in attempting to measure events too precisely. this is often not the case. 20 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . fall in different measurement periods with the result of them not being concurrent.Figure 6 — Comparison of Two Delays and Two Different Measurement Periods the measurement period can be concurrent with a delay by the contractor in the end of the measurement period. there is no concurrency. so as to establish the first three criteria. permits a day-by-day allocation of responsibility. and failure to establish apportionment will result in a finding against the contractor [24]. Since both delays are on the same critical path they might be considered concurrent under a global view of concurrency. the overall delay to building A is now two months. the Functional approach appears to be more widely accepted in court decisions. the critical path delay that starts first creates float in Concurrent Delay is a Legal Theory There are two conflicting viewpoints in court decisions regarding the time relationship between two delay events [5]. with each party responsible for one month. A more complicated situation however occurs when the two sequential delays occur along the same • COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 21 . These decisions find sequential delays along the critical path. As discussed below. The first viewpoint adopts a global view of concurrency. It is unclear from any reported cases whether this would be considered concurrent. The rational for this finding is that the effect of either individual delay is the same as the combined effect of both delays as shown in figure 1. One hopes that with modern CPM analysis better prepared cases result in these offsetting delay decisions no longer being valid. Later. The second viewpoint in reported cases discounts the global view of concurrency. thus preventing findings of concurrent offsetting delays [5]. the contractor delays work on Building A for a month. In these cases. are concurrent [7]. if sufficient. The courts have found that since the contractor is generally attempting to prove the delay. However. They do not distinguish between cocritical and single critical paths. even those that are widely separated in time. but at least one expert treatise published subsequent to the FSAPG 29R03 seems to support the Literal approach [23]. Such an allocation. see figure 7. it must generally prove apportionment between the owner and contractor. one that is consistent with offsetting concurrent delays. critical path. Yet. given sufficient detail. Recall that under the literal approach. the courts rely on the following two overlapping approaches to reach their decisions. The second and more successful approach is to strictly construe the critical path. For example. These delays that occur along different co-critical paths in a sequential manner are concurrent because each would have delayed completion absent the other. assume the owner delays Building A commencement by one month. Such a perspective. either implicitly or explicitly. they apportion delay responsibility based on the facts and delay analysis presented [20].Figure 7 — Offsetting Concurrent Delays Along a Single Critical Path FSAPG 29R-03 takes no position on whether the Functional or Literal approach is preferred. This appears to be a sequential nonconcurrent delay. • In the first approach. will lead to the literal approach of concurrency. these cases do not distinguish between literal and functional concurrency. These cases finding sequential concurrent delay seem to generally be older cases (some dating to the 1930s) where the factual presentations were insufficient to allow apportionment of the delays between the parties [14]. It is seldom fully successful. Owners generally posit this situation in negotiations because owners often have poor schedule control policies. and conclude the cost of litigating construction issues usually outweighs potential recovery. The recourse often is a discussion of offsetting delay. of course. (2) they can encourage and welcome such a negotiation. Subsection 4. contractors will follow all three alternatives sequentially. the experts and industry are significantly more advanced in concurrency analysis than the courts. yet is required to continue to make progress. Cutting the Knot on Concurrent Delay. through poor management practices. that contractors are often successful in eliminating liquidated damages from owner claims. or worse have affirmative policies that leaves determinations of delay quantification and entitlement until the end of the project. the owner arrives at the end of the project without having contemporaneously resolved requested time extensions. Such failures generally result in increased costs of resolution because contractors increase their pending change order claims to cover the increased delay and. J.” Undeserved time occurs when contractors are contemporaneously given time extensions. better understanding of concurrent delay by the experts. In all these situations. The result is neither party gets damages although a time extension is granted. The most common reasons are: 1. Contractors compare the costs and risks of litigation with the potential recovery. sequential delays along the critical path can be considered concurrent [11]. the owner attempted to offset a delay in site access with a subsequent contractor delay. simply fails to act on a contractor’s delay request. improved record keeping. [21].. February 2008. only to have afterthe fact analysis show such a time extension was undeserved. and better forensic CPM delay analyses. Part of this evaluation will be purely financial. The owner can have an active policy of deciding all delay issues at the end of the project. many times contractors simply yield to the superior bargaining position of owners on this issue of offsetting delay. This is usually done with the hope that the possible delay claim will evaporate through contractor resequencing. the board stated: “[I]f the [government’s] concurrent delays affected only work that was not on the critical path … they are not delays within the meaning of the [concurrency] rule…” This strict approach has been followed in other cases. that is. The owner can consciously adopt a “wait and see” attitude concerning delays. better CPM schedules maintained during projects. 2. Taylor. AACE International Recommended Practice 29R-03 (2011) Forensic Schedule Analysis Practice Guide. S. Owners often implement this policy under the misguided idea that it is cheaper to pay the premium for late issuance of a time extension rather than potentially pay for “undeserved time.2. This can be considered a partial success. appears from observation. The first reaction is almost always to prove the initial owner—caused delay and then go on to prove that all subsequent delays were not the contractor’s responsibility. It The Future of Offsetting Delays ike CPM scheduling itself. resulting in sequential delays being deemed concurrent. (3) they can yield to the owner’s superior bargaining position and accept the offsetting delay. In Santa Fe. Inc. but only when there is sufficient evidence to support such an analysis [17]. 2. This attempt often occurs because the owner fails to resolve delays as they occur. or. Reed. Morgantown. after the initial effort at proof of delay. The owner. Negotiating Offsetting Delays While the contractor should always follow the contract procedure and press for timely resolution of delay issues. but almost always partially successful. uncompensated acceleration or later contractor delays. This is. balancing the delay damages against the owners liquidated damages [2]. the contractor needs to be prepared in the event there is an end-of-project balancing effort by the owner. the contractor may recognize that the best resolution would be a finding of offsetting concurrency in lieu of winning on the owner’s initial delay and losing on the subsequent delay.the remainder of the schedule. 3. WV. Thus owners continue to assert their questionable entitlement to offsetting concurrent delays. Finally. Second. Recall in our initial discussion. Bidgood. This procedure incurs the same increased cost and constructive acceleration risks described above. what schedule delay experts working for contractors typically attempt. and J. constructive acceleration becomes more likely since the contractor has not been granted a contemporaneous time extension. 22 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . While there still exists a series of decisions that make concurrency decisions on a global basis. based on the rarity of actual payment of liquidated damages. Are Offsetting Delays Concurrent Delays? So now we know that owners can argue that time-separated delays can be concurrently offsetting delays because according to some judicial decisions. Construction Briefings. AACE International. Contractors have three major positions they can take in negotiating offsetting delays: (1) they can fight the alleged offsetting concurrency by establishing they were not responsible for the second delay. In many cases. all portend that offsetting concurrent delays will be a thing of the past. ◆ L REFERENCES 1. 1987. Ness. Bruner & O’Connor Construction Law. 84-2 BCA 17341. 97-1BCA 28918. Aspen Publishers. Young Entertainment of Ga. PCL Construction Services. U.. Santa Fe. Sterling Millwrights. § 1. and M. P and A. WV. 93-2 BCA 25788 (1993). ABOUT THE AUTHOR John C. v. 00-2 BCA 31148. 23. 49. v. Ltd. C. 1977. Nagata. 2009.. page 31. New York.J. 2000). Inc. Blackhawk Heating and Plumbing Co. 29 Fed. 8. Livengood.3.. Sharp. Inc. 30195 89-2 BCA 22814 (1989). Oxford University Press. 13. and 5081..70. 84-2 BCA 17341.. M. O’Connor. London. page 31. VABCA No. T. Utley-James.68. 1992. and B. 18146. S. 1969). (1975). 39 Fed.. Supp 2010). Inc. Cl. Definition 2: “Acting in conjunction. U. COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 23 . L. DCCAB No924 (1996). Concurrent Delay and the Critical Path: Views from the Bench.. 12.3rd 1283 (Fed. and C. S.J. Construction Delays. and R. West Thompson Reuters. Ct. 17 Construction Law 18. Lowe. But see. Kutin. 24.. (Ct. 5 Cl. 5370. Inc. and J. 87-2 BCA 19833. Inc. Anzidei. Blinderman Construction Co. Kirk Bros. Callahan. 2nd Edition. 22 Public Cont. Elsevier Inc. and 15. Cl. v.livengood@arcadis-us. 26 Cl.. Dale.. Bramble..S. 14437. New York.. Inc. 15. (2010) 39 Public Cont. V. Mechanical Contractors. 479 (2002).2d 1227. He can be contacted by sending e-mail to: john. VABCA No. 75-1 BCA 11161.01 (3d ed. see T. 161. ASBCA No. 5370. Inc. Cost Engineering journal. 5061. Inc. 14. and M. Construction Delays. Inc. Jones Construction Co.. 53 Fed.S. GSBCA No.. Cl. P. Fishbach & Moore International Corp.. Essex Electro Engineers. B. The Burden of Proof in Government Contract Schedule Delay Claims. Danzig. 7. (1984). Mega Construction Co. and B.. Cl. 1997. Fink. 5. 92-3-BCA 25144. 5. 84-3 BCA 17604 (1984) and Gulf Contracting.. 662. contributing to the same effect. Furniss. 3361. et. Maginelli. v. 224 F. Oxford English Dictionary. U. 1984. Vol. October 1997. U. 2007 Coffey Construction Company. MCI Contractors. UtleyJames.. v. John Driggs Co. 19. G. 18. Nagata.125. Inc. Construction Delay Claims. Bruner.S. Midgette. ASBCA No. 10. D’Onofrio. v. But see. VABCA No. W. 1977. 411 F.S. A. Reconciling Concurrency in Schedule Delay and Construction Acceleration. W. 9. See also. ENGBCA Nos. 16.. L.. AACE International. Section 15. 17.” 20. Ct. M. Inc. Santa Fe.al. 2009. 11. Furniss. 1984. EBCA No. 2nd Edition. Cost Engineering. 4926. Morgantown.M. 2000 Brasco. 396. Trauner. WV. 1984.67. Raymond Constructors of Africa. M.S. GSCA No 2431. Cir. London. U.. 77-1 BCA 12300. v.. v. 1943. 4. Ostrowski. GSBCA No. U. S. Lowe. February 2010. Morgantown. GSA. GSBCA No. 529 (1997). Concurrent Delay Analysis in Litigation. cooperating. January 2006. 85-1 BCA 17816 (1984). It should be noted that some contracts do not allow concurrent delays—they convert concurrent delays into contractor delays. 22. Arniz Construction. 1943. 40172. Elsevier Inc. Inc. CFCC PSP is with ARCADIS. 21. Inc. Concurrent Delay: The Challenge to Unravel Competing Causes of Delay. London. 85-1 BCA 17816. 1992. ASBCA No. J.com. (1993) (The court rejected concurrency saying that there could not be co-critical paths).S. 1971. 15.18712-81. Maginelli. Trauner. 6. (2000). . 2. dry materials. The description of the sample project presented in that article is reiterated here for reference. Personnel arrive through the reception area and goods are delivered by truck to the all-weather docking unit in that area. in preference for the taxonomic terms presented in the RP 29R-03. and 3. Now in its second revision. Sanders. The material developed for two of those sections was presented in 2008. has aroused significant debate in the forensic scheduling community since its original publication in 2007. A much smaller receiving and reception area is attached. six schedule updates. have been commonly referred to as “AsPlanned v. As-Built. • Analysis by comparing the asplanned and as-built schedules (observational/static/gross analysis per MIP 3.1). ( o b s e r vat i o n a l /stat i c / p e r i o d i c analysis per MIP 3. Update. and provides additional discussion of issues likely to be encountered in an actual implementation of the guidelines in the recommended practice. Figure 1 depicts the as-planned • Comparison. The design consists of tilt-up concrete panels with a steel-framed. and scheduling his article is the second in a series that presents a Forensic Schedule Analysis (FSA) example implementation. This article presents three separate analyses of the same project.8 of the Recommended Model Project to be Analyzed The sample project referenced in this article is the same project used in the example implementation for MIPs 3. metal roof. shows the logic diagram. The building will be used to store non-hazardous.2). the RP continues to evolve in pursuit of the original goal of providing a unifying technical reference for the forensic application of the critical path method of scheduling.7. and figure 2 conclusion. The article has the following five major sections: • Model project to be analyzed. The model project is the construction of a storage building. • Analysis by removing delay events from the as-built schedule. presented in 2008 [2]. 3.” Those terms are not used here. presents a comparison of the results from all five analyses. and a summary of project events based on the contractor’s and owner’s files. • Analysis by comparing the asplanned and as-built schedules on a periodic basis. there was a proposal to include example analysis implementations.2. In the example COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 25 . and 3. And.TECHNICAL ARTICLE FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS: EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION PART II Mark C.8). Key Words: Delay. in a paper detailing the forensic analysis of a sample project using Method Implementation Protocols 3.7. commentary. This article presents an analysis of the same project using MIPs 3. The reception area is framed with metal studs and enclosed with an exterior-insulating and finishing system (EIFS).1. in so-called “cookbook” sections. The original sample project was provided for the consideration of the participants in the RP development committee and had been used previously for the comparison of various delay analysis techniques [3]. PE CCE PSP Abstract: Recommended Practice R -— Forensic Schedule Analysis. critical path.” and “Collapsed As-Built.” “As-Planned v. This was manuscript CDR. T Practice. The analyses are based on the Method Implementation Protocols in Sections 3.1. During the development of the original RP.493 at the 2011 Annual Meeting. forensic schedule analysis. prepared to address the application of procedures described in Recommended Practice R — Forensic Schedule Analysis [1].8.3 and 3. The techniques explored here. 3. or variations on these techniques. The available information for the project includes a baseline schedule. (modeled/subtractive singlesimulation analysis per MIP 3.3 and 3. and schedule as a bar chart. Figure 1 — Baseline Schedule Figure 2 — Schedule Logic Diagram 26 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . There are no constraints in the schedule. The updates were completed after every four weeks of work. All other relationships are finish-to-start.1 This analysis will be performed based on the method implementation protocol (MIP) described in Section 3. The analysis is static because the critical path of the as-planned schedule is used as the basis for identifying critical delays throughout the project. foundation. The following logic diagram details the relationships in the baseline schedule. The goal of the schedule analysis will be to identify the specific activity delays that resulted in the overall eight-week delay to project completion. the project start milestone has start-to-start relationships with its successors. and there are no lags. tilt-up joining wall. and SVP 2.4 (delay identification and quantification). Durations are in weeks. The analysis is classified as retrospective because the analysis is performed after the delay events and the impacts of those events have COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 27 . and the punchlist activity has a finish-to-finish relationship with the project finish milestone. and project finish. The analysis is gross because the as-built schedule is compared directly to the as-planned schedule. as shown in figure 3.Figure 3 — As-Built Schedule project schedule. there were six updates to the baseline schedule. occurred and the outcome is known. remaining tilt-up walls. There Analysis by Comparing the AsPlanned and As-Built Schedules Observational/Static/Gross Analysis per MIP 3.1 of the RP. The baseline critical path begins with project start and proceeds through excavation. The project actually took 24 weeks to complete.2 (as-built validation) or SVP 2. The summary of project information will be used in conjunction with the project schedules. the progress from the asbuilt schedule is simply compared to the original as-planned schedule. Relevant information from the project records is summarized in table 1. and the project is planned to take 16 weeks to complete.1 recommends the implementation of the Source Validation Protocols (SVPs) as follow: SVP 2. SVP 2. install racking. beams and roofing. Including the as-built schedule. MIP 3. Interim updates are not analyzed as these reflect only a subset of the information that is ultimately captured in the final as-built schedule. outlining the events that occurred during the project. According to the RP.1 (baseline validation). punchlist. The analysis is observational because no activities are added or subtracted from the schedule to model delays or changes to the plan. Figure 3 shows the as-built schedule for the same project.3 (update validation). all of the information sources have been evaluated based on the SVPs and deemed to be reliable sources of project information for the analysis. and (3) separately identify activities that will be used to track intra-network time losses and gains. There have been no contract time extensions granted. Other recommendations from the RP include: (1) recognize all contract time extensions granted. The activity 28 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . such as on interim milestones. (2) identify the critical path activity that will be used to track the loss or gain of time for the overall network.Table 1 — Summary of Project Information are no additional SVPs recommended for an enhanced implementation. For the purpose of this example implementation. Table 1 — Summary of Project Information (Continued) COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 29 . Table 1 — Summary of Project Information (Continued) 30 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . The original durations shown are the same. as they would be in the schedule files. The planned and actual dates and durations can be observed on the bar chart. the analyst might begin to identify and quantify delays from figure 4. COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 31 . As the relevant information for the purpose of this analysis can be read directly from the bar chart on the right side of the figure. The analysis begins with a direct comparison of the as-planned and asbuilt schedules.Table 1 — Summary of Project Information (Continued) that will be used to track delays to the overall network will be Activity M990. Figure 4 includes the “raw” data from the as-planned and as-built schedules. Figure 4 shows an activity-by-activity comparison of the data from the two schedules. Using this information. The information in table 2 shows the extent to which each activity in the schedule started late and finished late.4 recommends identifying activity-level variances (ALVs). These variances can be identified by comparing the planned and actual dates for all activities. the columns on the left side will not be included in further figures. SVP 2. There are no intermediate milestones on the project [2]. and are all zero in the as-built schedule. The remaining durations are the same as the original durations in the as-planned schedule. The variances are summarized in table 2. Based on the project records. As-Built By comparing those variances. Further investigation is required. table 2 does not indicate whether the delays noted were critical. the contractor also noted that selection of the racking system was “becoming critical. In addition.Figure 4 — As-Planned v. so the analysis will begin there. Figure 5 is an initial attempt to associate the overall eight-week project delay with the individual activity delays shown in table 2. the activities actually took less time than planned. there were delays associated with an underground storage tank that impacted excavation. At one point. because variances are cumulative as the project progresses. By initial inspection. it also shows the extent to which each activity’s duration exceeded its original duration. The information in table 2 is useful but not conclusive.” but selection did not appear to delay procurement. and its duration was two weeks longer than 32 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . based on the project records. install racking was on the critical path in the as-planned schedule. Racking installation started six weeks later than originally planned. and design issues that affected roof joists and panels. In the case of the remaining tilt-up walls and reception roof. it is clear that there was a total eight-week delay to the completion of install racking. and its finish was delayed by eight weeks. delivery of the docking unit. In any case. and it was a predecessor to install racking. there was a delay to the beams and roofing because of a COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 33 . and that racking installation was suspended during that period.1 planned. Those delays are plotted on the project schedule in the next step of the analysis. in the as-built schedule. The documentation also indicates that the owner had an electrical contractor working during weeks 21 and 22.Table 2 — Activity-Level Variances for MIP 3. which was driving project finish. In addition. we can see that there was a three-week delay to excavation at the start of the project. These appear to be critical delays. and it was driving the start of punchlist. Based on the project records. because of the fact that install racking was on the critical path in the asplanned schedule. The project documentation discusses the fact that racking installation was proceeding from weeks 19 through 23. Predecessor activities will be investigated to determine what caused the delay to the start of install racking. which was two weeks longer than planned. beams and roofing was delayed by six weeks. there was a delay to excavation because of a UST that was found within the building footprint. In addition. As can be seen from the activity level variances in table 2. if a presentation is to be made before an arbitration panel or in a courtroom. We are due a time extension of at least 11 weeks. the overlapping portion of the racking delay is marked as ‘concurrent. beams and roofing and install racking were planned sequentially and actually proceeded sequentially. as-built comparison in figure 6. As-Built With Annotated Delays (Version 1.dimensional discrepancy between the structural and architectural drawings. Therefore. figure 7 shows a total of 11 weeks of delay.1—the analysis will continue. Racking installation had to be suspended for two weeks during that contractor’s work. As the overall • • • Depending on the owner. As we have identified the major delays of interest. If a presentation is to be made on behalf of the contractor. the delays were sequential. However. Instead. and the actual project was only delayed by eight weeks. We started the racking later than planned. Certainly. and there was no concurrent delay. this presentation might be sufficient to obtain a release from liquidated damages. Some simple presentations might stop here. some owners might require a more detailed analysis. These delays are plotted on the asplanned v. in an attempt to add more detail—while staying within the analysis Figure 5 — As-Planned v. If presented as an expert opinion. the sub-critical activities that have not been associated with project delays at this point are removed from the figures for simplicity. They were not concurrent activities. Figure 6 now shows a total of 14 weeks of non-concurrent delay. therefore. techniques outlined in MIP 3. We were delayed by an additional six weeks because of a dimensional design error between the structural and architectural drawings. the contractor would likely want to have a much more thorough presentation. A portion of the roofing delay overlaps with the racking delay noted previously. and eliminates the concurrent delay noted in figure 6. as part of a request for waiver of liquidated damages.’ as the delays appear to be concurrent in figure 6. having identified at least enough delay to explain the total project delay. As can be seen in figure 7. This leaves a two-week delay associated with the extended duration of install racking. we were not able to complete it prior to the mobilization of the owner’s electrical contractor. it might include the following statements: • We were delayed by three weeks because of unforeseen underground conditions associated with the UST. As the roofing delay occurred first. Draft) 34 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . Figure 7 shows that the entire sixweek delay to install racking could be associated with the late finish of beams and roofing. Still. so we should not be assessed liquidated damages for finishing eight weeks late. a presentation such as the preceding one runs the risk of being dismissed entirely for not meeting the standards for expert testimony. even though the updates will be used in the analysis. This is because the analysis Figure 6—As-Planned v. the owner reviewed it. Draft) COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 35 . It is notable that MIP 3. The three-week recovery is shown to highlight that fact. Both the contractor and owner agreed that the critical path shown in the plan was the critical path of the project. Figure 8 recognizes the fact that the delay to excavation was recovered by week 9.2 recommends the implementation of the same SVPs as MIP 3. provided comments. This figure will be used in the final presentation of the analysis. and ultimately approved it. and the remaining tilt-up walls activity was completed in the same week as originally planned. The analysis is static because the critical path of the as-planned schedule is used as the basis for identifying critical delays throughout the project.project was only delayed by eight weeks. and the contractor based its pricing and performance on that plan. and delays are identified during each update period. There is an inherent assumption that the parties had an agreed-upon plan with which to execute the work. for the purpose of this analysis. The analysis is classified as retrospective because the analysis is performed after the delay events and the impacts of those events have occurred and the outcome is known. The analysis is periodic because the progress in each schedule update is compared sequentially to the as-planned schedule. Again. MIP 3.2 This analysis will be performed based on the method implementation protocol (MIP) described in Section 3. The contractor prepared the plan.2 of the RP. The analysis is observational because no activities are added or subtracted from the schedule to model delays or changes to the plan.1. further investigation is required to resolve the discrepancy. the project experienced a six-week delay to the start of Beams and roofing and a two-week delay because of the extended duration of Install Racking. the progress from the asbuilt schedule is simply compared to the original as-planned schedule. The total project delay is determined to include the following: • • • • Three-week delay to excavation Three-week savings to remaining tilt-up walls Six-week delay to beams and roofing Two-week delay to install racking will proceed based on the critical path from the as-planned schedule.2 is still considered a static analysis technique. assume that all of the source Analysis by Comparing the AsPlanned and As-Built Schedules on a Periodic Basis Obser vational/Static/Periodic Analysis per MIP 3. As-Built With Annotated (Version 2. Subsequently. The activity was incomplete at the end of the period. Values determined in this step of the analysis are highlighted in yellow in the table. excavation is finished. In reviewing each period. The analysis begins with a comparison of the as-planned schedule to the first update. so its total duration variance is to be determined and is marked “TBD” in the table. its duration variance for the period is reported as two weeks. the project start milestone occurred. No other activities made progress during the period analyzed in figure 9. The milestone began as planned. and its actual start date is reported on the right side of figure 9. and are marked “N/A” on the right side of figure 9. as shown in figure 9. and the foundation and tilt-up joining wall activities both started and finished. In the second period. and it had an actual duration of four weeks by the end of the period. Figure 10 shows the as-built Figure 7—As-Planned v.documentation provided has been reviewed and determined to be valid. Excavation began as planned. Excavation had a planned duration of two weeks. and excavation began. Therefore. Draft) 36 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . Those values are tabulated on the right side of figure 9. The start variance is reported as zero. As-Built With Annotated Delays (Version 3. the analyst can identify any ALVs that occur during the period. During the first period. Duration variances are not applicable to milestone activities. so the ALVs is zero. As-Built With Annotated Delays (Version 4. This appears to be the same three weeks associated with the start and finish variances on the foundation and tilt-up joining wall activities. the project is not ready for the docking unit. The additional one week in period 2 brings the cumulative duration variance to a total of three weeks. More importantly. Its original planned duration was two weeks. Work has also started in the reception area. Figure 11 shows the three weeks of recovery achieved by completing the remaining tilt-up walls more quickly than originally planned. In any event. the critical beams and roofing activity did not begin immediately after the finish of remaining Figure 8—As-Planned v.schedule for the completed excavation activity and the two additional activities. which was not on the critical path in the baseline schedule. the analyst can see that the critical path is back on schedule by the end of week 9. The associated ALVs are tabulated on the right. The project records indicated that there was some concern regarding the fabrication of the docking unit. Final) COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 37 . There is an additional oneweek delay in this period associated with the extended duration of excavation. but they also indicated that the contractor was working with the supplier to expedite delivery. That duration had already been overrun by two weeks in period 1. Comparing the asplanned critical path to the as-built path in the storehouse. Update 1 Progress With ALVs for Period Figure 10—As-Planned v. Update 2 Progress With ALVs for Period 38 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 .Figure 9—As-Planned v. Then Punchlist work was completed within its planned one week duration. when work on that activity begins.tilt-up walls. and punchlist. as shown. All periods have now been analyzed. Both areas of the project are complete except for install racking. The magnitude of the delay associated with the start of roofing will be assessed in the next period. Period 3—Critical remaining tilt-up walls were expedited to recover the prior delay.2 consolidates the variances identified in all periods. but progress was delayed by two weeks because of unforeseen underground site conditions associated with the removal and remediation of a UST. Both activities were completed in week 23. and installation is under way. but that week appears to have been mitigated by the better-than-planned progress on roofing. With the project records and the analysis of each period. The docking unit was delivered. initial conclusions can be presented as to the delays that occurred during each period. progress in reception continued.2. and delivery of the docking unit appears to be imminent. install docking unit. For example: • Period 1—Critical excavation began. The start of beams and roofing was delayed six weeks. and the roof in that area was completed in one week less than its planned duration. but once they started.) The additional two weeks of delay appear to be because of the extended duration of the install racking and install docking unit activities. Meanwhile. The project is already four weeks past its planned completion date. Reception walls were • • Figure 11—As-Planned v. the ALV table has been fully populated. Installation has overrun its duration by one week. it actually took four weeks to complete the project. Period 2—Critical excavation was delayed by one additional week. instead of two as forecast in the project documentation available from week 20 (and the schedule update from week 20. the project is expected to finish in another two weeks.1. Meanwhile. As shown in figure 14. Figure 13 shows that the beams and roofing activity was completed within its planned duration. In fact. The completed ALV table created in MIP 3. and this appears to be a critical path delay. and the analyst is now ready to summarize the results of the analysis. critical foundation and tilt-up joining wall activities were delayed by the extended duration of excavation. It was simply populated through a step-by-step process in MIP 3. all available project documentation has been reviewed. the dimensional issues that caused the delay to beams and roofing have been resolved through modifications to the roof structure and panels. they were completed with no additional delay. and installation of the roof system began in week 16. work in reception continued. it is identical to the ALV table created for MIP 3. and the project was completed in week 24. Update 3 Progress With ALVs for Period COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 39 . concurrently. Based on project documentation. Based on the project records. Figure 12 shows the analysis of the fourth period. It is true that the analysis does not take the dynamic nature of the critical path into account. Some analysts might disagree with some of these statements based on critical path concepts. As that work should have started in week 10. Critical beams and roofing did not begin as planned. because the project should have been completed in week 16. Period 4—The delay to critical beams and roofing because of dimensional errors continued until week 16. In fact. No critical path work was performed during the last two weeks of the period. The reception area was completed.” even though it is divided into periods and presented in a manner that might be called a “windows analysis” by some practitioners. Period 5—Beams and roofing work was completed within its planned duration. Figure 12—As-Planned v. However. While install docking unit was not on the as-planned critical path. and they documented that understanding at the beginning of the project through their development. Work in the Reception area continued. Therefore. and agreement on the project schedule.• • • also proceeding. they might argue that the analysis does not take into account the “dynamic nature of the critical path. work in the reception area proceeded. Those were the last two activities to be completed prior to punchlist. In fact. and install docking unit took four weeks longer than originally planned. and the project was completed in week 24. so that racking installation could proceed the following week. They were both completed in week 23. They might argue that there is nothing in the analysis that justifies the determination of which activities are critical. except for the docking unit. One party might argue that the analysis did not address significant delays to some activities in reception. everything was critical at this point. the delays associated with the racking system and docking unit were considered to be concurrent. review. Update 4 Progress With ALVs for Period 40 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . based on the concept presented at the beginning of this section—the owner and contractor had an understanding as to what was critical on the project. but the extended durations caused an additional two weeks of delay. which was performed by another contractor. Period 6—Install racking took two weeks longer than originally planned. this was a total six-week delay by the end of period 4. Once they were completed. punchlist was completed as planned. a review of the project documentation shows that both activities were delayed by electrical work. It is a static analysis. Final details regarding the racking system were resolved with the owner in the same week that roof work was completed. 3 in the RP. no specific effort is made to divide the analysis into periods or reproduce the status of the project as Figure 12—As-Planned v. If this analysis were to be presented in a legal forum. Another criticism of this analysis might be based on the fact that the remaining work from the as-planned schedule should be pushed to the right as each periodic analysis begins. Update 4 Progress With ALVs for Period COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 41 . However. and an analysis of this project using the technique was presented in 2008 [2]. The analysis is a singlesimulation because the delays are extracted in one period—between the as-planned and as-built schedules.8 This analysis will be performed based on the method implementation protocol (MIP) described in Section 3. The analysis is modeled because activities modeling the delay events are inserted into the as-built schedule.and the other party might argue that the reception work was never critical. and could have been expedited if it had become critical.8 of the RP. and critical path shifts would need to be considered each time the remaining work is rescheduled. Then they are subtracted to collapse the as-built schedule. Analysis by Removing Delay Events from the As-Built Schedule Modeled/Subtractive SingleSimulation Analysis per MIP 3. That technique is covered under MIP 3. Rescheduling incomplete work at the end of each period would classify this as a dynamic analysis. the analyst would likely want to consult with counsel as to whether there exists precedent that requires an analyst to recognize the critical path as dynamic in an analysis such as this one. in a forum where a contract time extension is to be negotiated (as opposed to litigated). From one perspective. it is confusing to compare the as-built schedule to the original as-planned schedule once delays have occurred. The analysis is classified as retrospective because the analysis is performed after the delay events and the impacts of those events have occurred and the outcome is known. Although the delays may be extracted in a particular order. this analysis may be compelling if presented by persons knowledgeable of the events that occurred during each period of the project. weather conditions have been determined to be “normal” and had no impact on the project during its 24-week duration. no calendar was incorporated into the as-built schedule to model actual weather conditions.7 in 2008 [2].3 (update validation) can be performed in an “enhanced implementation.8 states that SVPs 2. Network fragments (“fragnets”) are then created to model each of the delaying events on the project. MIP 3. Based on a review of the project documents. the as-built has been validated. The fragnets are similar to those that were used in the presentation of MIP 3. MIP 3.8 lists a series of six points under the heading “Recommended Implementation Protocols” and three more points under “Enhanced Implementation Protocols. Another key difference is that the durations have been extended in some cases (as compared to the fragnets used in MIP 3. However. All of these points were taken into consideration in performing the example analysis. Delay A—Discovery of UST (differing site condition). One point was determined not to be relevant to the example.2 (as-built validation) and 2. For the purpose of the analysis. One week was spent testing the surrounding soil for contamination and Figure 14—As-Planned v. As-Built Progress With ALVs for Period 42 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . removal.” Similar to the other MIPs covered for this example.it was shown in the intermediate updates. Namely.8 recommends the implementation of SVPs 2. and mitigation— Excavation began as planned in week 1. Delays will be identified and quantified in the initial steps of the analysis. assume that all data sources have been validated and deemed to be reliable. the delays are identified and the fragnets created. and these fragnets are inserted into the as-built schedule and logically tied so that the delay activities are linked to the activities that they affected.4 (delay ID and quantification). The analysis begins with the as-built schedule shown in figure 3. an underground storage was discovered in the building footprint. testing. at the end of the week. One key difference is that all activities in the fragnets in MIP 3. MIP 3. but was suspended in the area of the storage tank.1 (baseline validation) and 2. Excavation proceeded.7) to facilitate collapsing the schedule. After listing the relevant SVPs. For the purpose of the analysis.8 are added to the schedule in the as-built condition. two weeks were spent removing the UST and contaminated soil before completing excavation activities. Activities that are added are highlighted in the figures (light blue). The supplier wrote a letter to the contractor detailing the delay at the start of week 5. Delay B—Docking unit supplier delay—Fabrication of the docking unit was initially scheduled to begin in week 1. That information is noted in the Successors column. Fragnet B was developed to model the delay. Fragnet A was developed to model the work associated with the UST. as shown in figure 16. The other activities shown in the fragnet graphics are included to show logical ties between the fragnet activities and existing schedule activities. Through continued communications with the supplier.2 developing appropriate remediation efforts. as shown in figure 15.Table 3—Completed Activity-Level Variance Table for MIP 3. Then. Based on review of project documentation. Although the supplier’s letter indicated that it would delay the start of fabrication from week COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 43 . the contractor’s supplier indicated that it would not begin fabricating the docking unit until week 11 because its factory was operating at capacity on other projects. the contractor learns that the fabricator actually begins work in week 12. However. the supplier did not actually begin fabrication until week 12. the owner informed the contractor that it had expected general contract work to be complete by now.Figure 15—Fragnet A Figure 16—Fragnet B Figure 17—Fragnet C Figure 18—Fragnet D 1 to week 11. it was determined that there was an error in the contract drawings that caused numerous roof members and metal roof panels to be fabricated too long. Fragnet D was developed to model the delay. and the owner will not waive that requirement because it would void the roof warranty. the delay is modeled as continuing through week 11. as shown in figure 17. but the panel modifications are expected to take four weeks. The electrical contractor will occupy the majority of the docking area and storehouse during that time. as shown in figure 18. However. Thus. Delay C—Drawing dimension discrepancies and field modifications of roof system—Based on project documentation. The steel was fabricated in accordance with the contract drawings and the accepted shop drawings. Fragnet C was developed to model the delay. Delay D—Installation of electrical and inventory systems for racking system—At the start of week 21. the panels will be returned to the supplier for modification. The first half will be returned to the project site at the end of the second week. structural steel arrived on site at the start of week 13. and the second half will be returned at the end of the fourth week. the specifications do not allow metal roof panels to be field cut or bent. The owner had scheduled an electrical contractor to install a computerized receiving and inventory system during weeks 21 and 22. The field cutting of structural steel is expected to take one week. Therefore. when the erected tilt-up panels were surveyed. The panels will be shipped in two partial deliveries in order to minimize the delay. 44 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . The specifications contain a pre-approved procedure for cutting the steel members in the field. there is no logical tie that drives an activity to be performed on the dates that it actually occurred. most accounts of MIP 3. including the fragnets. Once the fragnets are added to the as-built schedule. In order to match the as-built dates. While some packages maintain this data. a suspension period was introduced into the Excavation activity to show that it could not proceed during the testing and removal of the UST. In most cases.8—often referred to as a collapsed-as-built analysis—employ some method of de-statusing the schedule.Fragnets A through D are added into the as-built schedule. In this case. This step is necessary when using many commercial CPM packages because much of the software overwrites or deletes data produced in the network calculation once actual dates have been reported for the activities. the logic of the schedule. some analysts insert lags. Many software packages cannot calculate a network with this type of relationship. early start constraints were used to match dates. When the delay associated with the testing and UST is removed Figure 19—As-Built Schedule Including Fragnets A Through D COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 45 . However. In addition. resulting in the model shown in figure 19. and the data date is moved back to the beginning of week 1. The remaining duration of each activity is set to the actual duration. in a few cases. To de-status the schedule. the next step is to “destatus” the schedule so that CPM calculations can be performed. but was concluded as a predecessor to the finish of excavation. keeps each activity scheduled on the actual dates on which it occurred. the excavation activity was shown as suspended. Instead. several steps are taken. as it will be considered a loop. This was done because the testing began as a successor to the start of excavation. the suspension of the excavation activity will be removed. However. but for that delay. This is because every gap in the schedule could potentially be filled with some delaying event. Once the schedule has been destatused. It is notable that every activity in the de-statused as-built is critical. the beams and roofing activity was planned to proceed after the tilt-up walls. even if the event is simply waiting for one party to begin work. both of those logic paths are on the as-built critical path. Its float value (highlighted in yellow) has also changed. install racking. the completion date of the project changes from week 24 to week 22. The early-start constraint that maintained the select racking system to be scheduled in week 18 is removed. The delay is removed by removing fragnet D and the suspensions on install racking and install docking unit. In the as-built schedule. if not for the dimensional issues. the third delay removed is the delay associated with beams and roofing. there is no savings to the project finish date. The schedule for the example project is relatively simple. there is no overall project savings. The result is shown in figure 21. and that the later-thanplanned selection did not cause a project delay. the collapse can proceed. This implies that the project would have been completed in week 22. Removal of the activities for field survey tilt-up walls. This implies that no time would have been saved by selecting the racking system sooner. where it was in the original as-planned schedule. In fact. The first delay removed from the schedule is the delay associated with the owner’s electrical work during weeks 21 and 22. Suspension periods were also introduced into the install racking and install docking unit activities to better depict the fact that those activities did not proceed during the owner’s electrical work. Removing the delay does Figure 20—De-Statused As-Built Schedule 46 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . field cut structural steel. the more critical activities there will be in the schedule. It is not uncommon to have many critical activities prior to collapsing an as-built schedule. select racking system falls back to week 1. and modify roof panels allows beams and roofing to be scheduled immediately after the remaining tilt-up walls. Continuing to work back through the project schedule. After the removal of the delays associated with the electrical contractor. Figure 22 shows the second change in collapsing the as-built schedule. The more gaps in the schedule are filled. with only two logic paths.from the schedule (collapsed). Although removing the field survey and modification activities results in a six-week savings to the beams and roofing activity and its successor. Removing that delay results in the schedule shown in figure 24. which might provide a check that the analysis has been completed thoroughly. the analysis has had that result. but the schedule still shows a three-week delay. there is no overall project savings as there is still a path of activities that will take 22 weeks to complete. Install docking unit overran its duration by two weeks. That would imply that the extended durations caused six weeks of delay. the remaining delay appears to be because of the extended duration of the install docking unit and reception walls activities. it is noted that the logic of the collapsed as-built is the same as the logic of the as-planned schedule. the betterthan-planned progress of Remaining tilt- up walls appears to have resulted in a three-week savings to the project completion date. Removing the UST delay results in a savings of three weeks. it now matches the as-planned schedule. Based on those facts. Restoring the duration of remaining tilt-up walls drives the project finish date back to week 16.nothing more than create six weeks of float for that group of activities. Again. The preceding reception walls activity overran its duration by four weeks. as opposed to the 19 weeks shown in figure 25. The fifth delay removed from the project schedule is the delay to excavation because of UST removal. It is also consistent with the manner in which the project was actually constructed. along with the suspension period on the excavation activity that was in the model. in this simple case. Removing the extended durations results in a schedule that would have completed in 13 weeks. However. The fourth delay removed from the project schedule is the docking unit supplier delay. when compared to the original as- planned schedule. Once this last change is made to the as-built schedule. For the example project. although the as-built durations were longer or shorter than the as-planned durations in some cases. and the project completion date moves back to week 19. Fully collapsing an as-built schedule does not always result in a schedule that is identical to the asplanned schedule. The delay activities are removed. Recalling that the remaining tilt-up walls activity was completed three weeks faster than planned. but the project was scheduled to take 16 weeks in the as-planned schedule. we can understand the discrepancy.8 recommends that a constructability analysis be performed on the collapsed as-built schedule. MIP 3. In fact. This is because the excavation and docking unit supplier delay are both driving paths of activities that will still take 22 weeks to complete. As shown in figure 25. the collapsed as- Figure 21—Collapsed As-Built With First Delay Removed COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 47 . All delay activities have now been removed from the model. it is identical to the as-planned schedule. Therefore. even once the delay associated with the electrical work was removed. No delay was found to be associated with beams and roofing in the storehouse because of the fact that the reception walls and install docking unit activities in reception took much longer than planned.1 found that all delay to the project was associated with the storehouse.8 has a different approach. the results of the analysis can be summarized. Four weeks Figure 22—Collapsed As-Built With Second Delay Removed 48 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . No further constructability analysis is deemed necessary in this instance.1 and 3. based on MIP 3.8 produced significantly different results for the later part of the project.2 are similar. Table 4 compares the results of the three approaches. MIP 3. They were associated with install racking. resulting in a net total of eight weeks of project delay. Yet. They were associated concurrently with install racking and install docking unit. the delays surrounding the construction of the storage area structure were found to be the same. and six weeks of delay with beams and roofing. MIPs 3.1. the two MIPs found • • • • different results for the last two weeks of delay. This is interesting. but there were three weeks of mitigation because of the betterthan-planned progress of remaining tilt-up walls. However.2 is essentially a more granular version of the approach in MIP 3. while MIP 3. three weeks of savings with remaining tilt-up walls. the following conclusions might outline the cause of the eight-week project delay: • Two weeks associated with delays to install racking and install docking unit (concurrently) because of the owner’s electrical contractor Three weeks associated with the delay to excavation because of testing and UST removal Two weeks because of slower-thanplanned progress of install docking unit (prior to the mobilization of the owner’s electrical contractor) Four weeks because of the slowerthan-planned progress of reception walls These delays total 11 weeks.2 found that a small portion of the delay was because of work in reception. However. considering that the analysis approach in MIP 3. MIP 3.2. Three weeks of delay were associated with excavation. MIP 3. based on MIP 3. MIP 3.2. Based on MIPs 3. Comparison and Commentary Three separate analyses have been performed on the example project based on three different Method Implementation Protocols.1 and 3. focusing on modeling delays so that they can be subtracted from the as-built schedule.1.8 produced the same results for the early part of the project.built is deemed to represent a constructable plan.2. For example.1 and 3. Now that the collapse has been completed. They are based on an observational comparison of the asplanned and as-built schedules. The delays found through erection of the remaining tilt-up walls were found to be the same as those identified in MIPs 3. Figure 23—Collapsed As-Built With Third Delay Removed Figure 24—Collapsed As-Built With Fourth Delay Removed COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 49 . two of those weeks were associated with the extended duration of the installation before mobilization of the owner’s electrical contractor. However.Figure 25—Collapsed As-Built With Fifth Delay Removed Figure 26—Collapsed As-Built With Extended Durations Removed of delay were associated with reception walls. Table 5 presents a simplified summary of the results of the three analyses by distributing the concurrent delays equally among the associated activities. the summarized values include more than one delay factor in some cases. similar to what was found in MIP 3. For example. In other words. the summary of MIP 3. This allows for a simpler presentation.8 now shows three weeks of delay associated with install docking unit. the two-week delay that was concurrently associated with install racking and install docking unit was distributed to allocate one week of delay to each activity. and one of those weeks was associated with the allocated portion of the two-week delay. and two weeks of delay were associated with install docking unit.2. during which the electrical contractor was working and concurrently delaying the 50 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . However. The final two weeks of delay were found to be concurrently associated with install racking and install docking unit. MIPs 3.1 and 3. no two analysis techniques allocated the delays to the activities in the same way.7 found that some of the delay Table 4—Summary of Delays From Three Analyses COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 51 . Although all techniques found delays whose total correlated with the overall eight-week project delay.3 and 3.2 emphasized the significant delay to the roofing in the storehouse.Figure 27—Collapsed As-Built With Remaining Tilt-Up Walls Duration Restored completion of install racking and install docking unit. The simplified summary in table 5 is not the most convenient way to summarize delays for presentation of a responsibility analysis due to the summarization of independent delays to the same activity. which were presented in 2008 [2]. However. Table 6 shows the differing conclusions that were reached by applying five different analysis techniques to the same project. it is useful in comparing the results of the multiple analysis techniques in allocating the eight-week project delay to the activities. MIPs 3.3 and 3. Table 6 expands on this comparison by including the analyses based on MIPs 3.7. In the end. especially when delays are occurring on more than one path of activities. “When there are multiple impacts to a project and many activities are performed later than their original late dates. As stated in 2008.8 found no delay associated with the roofing because of the slower-thanplanned progress on the reception walls during that time. . The best analyses are those that take advantage of the best sources of project information available and incorporate that information into an objective analysis of the project schedule. . MIP 3. .Table 5—Simplified Summary of Delays From Three Analyses Table 6—Summary of Delays From Five Analyses during that time was associated with the delayed fabrication of the docking unit. the results of any analysis must be tied to actual project 52 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 . The differences in the results of the five analyses highlight the importance affect that the analysis technique can have on the identification of activity delays. the partitioning of project delay into the underlying activity delays can be more easily influenced by the analysis technique chosen. Candidates will then have until Jan. The debate as to which analysis techniques provide the best answer in the most situations is continuing. CDR. Sanders. to develop their responses to each question. Balloting for the elections opens on Feb. 31. they may still be used in a presentation to negotiate a contract time extension.” the program will allow individual members to post a question online to candidates running for board of director’s position until Dec. All candidates for a similar position will be asked the same questions. 30.” The additional analysis of the example project presented here further highlights the fact that two reasonable analysts are likely to reach somewhat different conclusions if they use different analysis techniques. (latest revision). is with Alpha3 Consulting LLC. “The committee is of the opinion that this recommendation offers a potential method of increasing membership interest in the election process while allowing members an opportunity to get a better understanding of their candidates’ views. J. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Mark C. on the AACE International website. After that deadline. He can be contacted by sending e-mail to: msanders@alphathree. in a Discussion Forum on the AACE International website set up for this particular purpose.m. COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 53 . M.. in order to facilitate debate and lead the community of practitioners to consensus regarding best practices in forensic schedule analysis. 2012.. schedules and brief project description. Rather. Entitled “Ask Your Candidates. Recommended Practice No. Schedule Delay Analysis: Is There Agreement? Presentation of example project including presentation slides. However. the Nominating Committee will review the submitted questions and then post.11 Forensic Schedule Analysis: Example Implementation. Eastern US on March 15. WV. 31. The presentation of the particular analysis techniques in this article is not meant as an endorsement. Hoshino. All candidate responses will be posted in the Discussion Forum on Jan.com pastpres@aacei. Zack. Morgantown. All emails should be sent no later than Dec. PE CCE PSP.” To submit a question for the candidate review process. send an email with the text of the question and to which candidate position it should be addressed to. and closes at 4 p. 2011. 2011. 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis. 11. et al. to: T REFERENCES 1. AACE International Board Approves “Ask Your Candidates” Process for 2012 Election he AACE International Board of Directors approved a recommendation from the Nominating Committee to create a new program designed to provide more meaningful information regarding the positions of candidates for AACE International board of director positions. a maximum of 10 questions for each candidate by Jan. 2003. 2012. 1. AACE International Transactions. K.org. It is doubtful that there is any one analysis technique that provides the best answer in every situation. 2. Some of the analysis techniques presented in this article may be disallowed for use in certain forums because of legal precedent. 3. 2008. AACE International. WV. Chair of the Nominating Committee. it is meant to provide practitioners with the ability to compare the merits and failings of each analysis technique presented in RP29R03. 2012. According to Steve Revay..events to ensure that the model is a fair reflection of reality [2]. Morgantown. Sanders. 2012. 31. . Cost..aacei.com and recommend additional products as well.com • EXHIBIT at the 2012 AACE International Annual Meeting in San Antonio. this page YOUR VISIBILITY ▲ • IN THE COST ENGINEERING JOURNAL ADVERTISE REACH the entire AACE International membership every month by placing an ad in the Cost Engineering journal. inside front cover Infinitrac. Our goal is to have each of these AACE publications available online from Amazon.aacei.org. PSP Study Guide. this page Management Technologies. or e-mail him at [email protected] OR GO ONLINE AT www. inside back cover For additional information about the listed advertisers or about advertising with us. We will maintain a link from the AACE website to Amazon. and the TCM Framework) to be produced by a subsidiary of Amazon.e. ◆ INDEX TO ADVERTISERS ARES Corporation. McNatty and Associates. and AACE International members face to face. TX. page 3 D.000 users each month with a banner ad at our website. this page EcoSys. www.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIRECTORY All AACE International Books to be "Print-on-Demand" Products AACE will be reformatting each of its print products (i.S. Inc. (410) 584-1966. ▲ ▲ Moca Systems.com in 2012. please phone Mark Stout at Network Media Partners.org COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 55 . back cover Bechtel Corporation.R. page 13 Skire. page 13 U. the Skills and Knowledge of Cost Engineering.. page 23 Ron Winter Consulting. CONTACT Mark Stout at Network Media Partners Inc. • PLACE your products/services in front of over 50. EVP Study Guide. phone 410-584-1966 fax 410-584-8359 e-mail mstout@networkmediapartners. CCC/CCE Certification Study Guide.com. . 5728 Article Reference Number .ARTICLE REPRINTS AND PERMISSIONS COST ENGINEERING Vol.521.8.8400. Non-members can subscribe to the AACE Virtual Library at an annual cost of US $100. and shows how confusion has made the legal rulings on concurrent delay unpredictable. particularly delays associated with performance of non-critical work. please contact our Managing Editor. and provides additional discussion of issues likely to be encountered in an actual implementation of the guidelines in the recommended practice.21968 Pages 15-23 TO ORDER Contact: AACE International Publications Sales at pubsales@aacei. Article Reference Number . US-based contractors know what must be documented in order to recover in such situations.org Article Reference Number . Pages 4-13 The Basics of Constructive Acceleration James G. These delays have the special name of offsetting concurrent delays.3 and 3. and pay the required photocopying fees.609 at the 2011 AACE International Annual Meeting in Anaheim. During the development of the original RP. or to request permission for bulk photocopying. there was a proposal to include example analysis implementations. For Information Concerning Other Reuse Requests If you are seeking permission to quote or translate into another language any material from any issue of the Cost Engineering journal.org. You can search for articles using the reference numbers listed in the Cost Engineering journal. Electronic files of each month’s technical articles are posted and members can download an Adobe Acrobat (PDF) version of any of the technical articles for free. The US federal government’s Boards of Contract Appeals long ago created this claim and established the basic rules of entitlement concerning this type of claim. has aroused significant debate in the forensic scheduling community since its original publication in 2007. presents a comparison of the results from all five analyses. please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at 978. owners of construction projects often use their superior bargaining power to strike a deal better than the facts or the law would permit. AACE International no longer offers reprints of individual articles. This was manuscript CDR.00. CFCC PSP When dealing with contractor delay claims. This article presents an analysis of the same project using MIPs 3. Contact Us AACE International 1265 Suncrest Towne Centre Dr Morgantown.493 at the 2011 Annual Meeting. For any other use or reprint requests. Photocopying Prices: For permission to photocopy individual articles for personal use. making both delays non-compensable. This is especially true in cases where it is possible for the owner to argue sequential delays by the contractor should offset earlier delays caused by the owner.21969 Pages 25-53 Forensic Schedule Analysis: Example Implementation Part II Mark C. 3. Marvin Gelhausen at [email protected]. Livengood. But when US contractors are working outside the US and are faced with this sort of situation. No.1. Savvy owners use this lack of understanding when negotiating settlements of delay claims by contractors. in so-called “cookbook” sections. Sanders.21970 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 57 . and 3. 54. please e-mail: [email protected]. Thus.. These articles are available at the online Virtual Library at www. The material developed for two of those sections was presented in 2008. PE CCE PSP Recommended Practice 29R-03—Forensic Schedule Analysis.org.aacei. CFCC FRICS Constructive acceleration is a well recognized claim in the US. Concurrent delays. can they recover in arbitration or litigation in other jurisdictions? This article examines constructive acceleration in various legal jurisdictions (both common law and civil law) around the world to determine whether a contractor is able to use this type of claim to recover damages. This article was first presented at the 2011 AACE International Annual Meeting as manuscript CDR. in a paper detailing the forensic analysis of a sample project using Method Implementation Protocols 3. An earlier version of this article was first presented as manuscript CDR. the RP continues to evolve in pursuit of the original goal of providing a unifying technical reference for the forensic application of the critical path method of scheduling. are poorly understood by the courts and schedule analysts alike.2. Calif. The author has made some updates and revisions since that presentation and they are included with this printing.org Offsetting Delays — The Owner’s Friend John C. thus strengthening the owners bargaining position and allowing for the popularity of offsetting delays claims. Now in its second revision.7. Zack Jr.8444 Fax: 304.1/January 2012 Members of AACE International have access to free downloads of selected articles that are published with an AACE International reference number. This article discusses the most recent technical issues associated with concurrent delay. WV 26505-1876 USA Phone: 304.750. Editor. 2nd Edition Ken Cressman. Roles and Duties of a Planning and Scheduling Engineer. This is a very useful book for those studying for the certification exam. Pritchett.org Skills and Knowledge of Cost Engineering. CCE. The new 5th edition includes twenty-seven chapters on estimating. 2007 This updated and expanded guide for fundamentals is an excellent choice for anyone interested in a concise reference to all aspects of the profession. Project Code of Accounts. Editors. PE CCE. extensive material on capital and operating cost estimation. Amos.00 member/US$80. The outline provides a listing of the terms you should know & topics for which you should have a good understanding of how to apply the concepts to solve problems.US$50. cost/schedule control.Download . planning progress and cost control. 1820-38zip .00 nonmember AACE International Recommended Practices Cost Engineering Terminology. Editor. Hollmann. allows students to maximize their study time. which test your knowledge of that chapter's concepts.00 member/US$80 nonmember Paper version available through our Amazon. Cost Estimate Classification System.US$50.US$61 electronic subscription CCC/CCE Certification Study Guide.00 for airmail .00 nonmember Paper Version available through Amazon.Download . 1825-36zip .00 member/US$80 nonmember Paper version available through our Amazon. CCC EVP and Gary C. Revised Scott J. project management.Download .US$75. which test your knowledge of that chapter's concepts.00 member/US$110. 1820-40zip . 2006 The AACE International CCC/CCE Certification Study Guide provides an all-encompassing reference text to prepare for the exam. references. and total cost management. It includes data and procedures related to basic skills and knowledge that all cost engineers should possess. and much more.00 member/US$80. 450 pages 1595-02zip . Subscriptions are accepted on an annual basis. Each chapter also contains sample exercises.00 nonmember Paper version available through our Amazon.US$50. Editor.US$171. project management. and papers in four subject areas: cost control.com 2011 AACE International Transactions 5220-11 zip Download . scheduling.Download .00 nonmember For CD-ROM version please contact AACE International Headquarters EVP Certification Study Guide.00 nonmember Paper Version available through our Amazon. manufacturing and operating costs. An automatic benefit of AACE International membership.Download . 1st Edition Peter W.00 member/US$105. 4060-05zip .00 nonmember PSP Certification Study Guide. planning and scheduling. and economic analysis and business planning. worked problems with answers.US$50. and provides a concise overview of the fundamentals of cost and project management.00 member .US$72. plus many more. Profitability Methods. The CCC/CCE Certification Study Guide provides background information on how to become certified. 4060-28zip . gives those studying for the certification exam a single reference text that includes theory.com link Cost Engineers’ Notebook This CD-ROM is an important reference for any project or cost professional. Each chapter also contains sample exercises. Humphreys.com link The Total Cost Management Framework John K. Editor.US$80.US$70.US$50.US$65. Estimate Preparation Costs in the Process Industries. The outline provides a listing of the terms you should know & topics for which you should have a good understanding of how to apply the concepts to solve problems. and a full discussion of key topics. 5th Edition.00 (other countries) Please add US$80. Additional sample questions are provided in an appendix. 2008 This study guide is intended to assist you in your study and review of the overall topics as one step toward successful Planning and Scheduling Professional certification.00 (US) .Download . Required Skills and Knowledge of a Cost Engineer. 3rd Edition Michael B. 2009 This study guide is intended to assist you in your study and review of the overall topics as one step toward successful Earned Value Professional certification.00 member/US$70. Griesmyer.Download .aacei.com link Cost Engineering The international journal of cost estimation. 2006 4060-20zip .com link .AACE INTERNATIONAL ONLINE STORE more online at www. 5060-07 . also available to nonmembers. Cost Control. 2008 Covers: Recognition of Affects and Economic Costs on the Environment. Cost Modeling. Overhead and Profit. Construction Activities. Editor. Estimating Capital Cost of Design and Construction. Cost Estimating Methodology. 2nd Ed. Crawford. Decision Trees. CCC. Cost Engineering. Editor. and Ethics. 2nd Ed. Tammy L. Economic Analysis. Dennis M. and Bruce Elliott. PPG #19: Leadership and Management of People John J. Management and Analysis of Delay. 2006 Covers: Recommended Practices. Editor. PPG#7: Cost Engineering in the Utility Industries. Asset Requirements Elicitation and Analysis. PPG#5: Earned Value. and Other Related Topics. Cost Estimating. 2007 Covers: Basis of Estimates. Contingency Management. Concurrent Delay Issues. PPG#4: Planning and Scheduling. PPG #15: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Dr. Budgeting and Justifying the Cost of Sustainable Practices. Larry R. and Range Estimating. MIPModeled Additive Single Base. and more. Life-Cycle Cost Methods. Keith D. Estimating Salvage/Residual Value. PPG #13: Parametric and Conceptual Estimating. Parametric. and other previously published documents to which AACE has rights. Soft Costs.00 Download Non-Member Price US$70. PPG #18: Green Building Joseph L. Kul B. 1998 Covers: Aerospace and Aviation. MIP-Observational Dynamic Modified or Recreated. PE. PPG#2: Risk. 4th Ed. CCC. 2nd Ed. Douglas D. Macaluso. Uppal.The The AACE AACE International International Professional Professional Practice Practice Guides Guides (PPGs) (PPGs) Value. Applicable AACE International Recommended Practices. Life -Cycle Cost Case Studies. 2008 Covers: Leadership. DB Project Management. Editor. MIP-Modeled Subtractive Single Simulation. 2nd Ed. Synopsis of Recommended Practice. 2007 Covers: Enterprise Management: General Imperatives and Concerns. Human Factors. Risk Analysis. Randy R. CEP. MIP-Observational Static Gross. Dysert. Douglas W. PPG#6: Construction Cost Estimating. PE CCE. Construction Practices. 2008 Covers: Recommended Practice No. MIP-Observational Static Periodic. Cost Impacts. DB Scheduling.00 PPG#1: Contracts and Claims. Generation Power Plant. Contingencies.www. Technological Risk. CCE. Cost-Effective Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention. Editor. Non-CPM Schedule Delay Analysis Techniques. Uppal. Classification. DBB Project Management. 2005 Covers: General Topics On Contingency. Determining Discount Rate. Editors. Methodology. Basics of Earned Value. PPG #17: Public Sector Estimating Joseph L. Specific Green Building Strategies and Project Costs. 2008 Covers: Contract Administration. Cost Estimating Methodology. 2008 Covers: Design-Bid-Build (DBB) – DBB Estimating. MIP-Observational Dynamic Contemporaneous As-Is. Editors. Editor. Estimating Overhead and Indirect Costs. Editor. Cash Flow. CFCC. and Mark-Ups. Productivity Impacts. and Carla Lopez del Puerto. and more. 2nd Ed. CCC. Bid/Estimate Reconciliation. Estimating Material Costs and Quantity Surveying. Risk Analysis and Contingency. Contracts. Process and Non-Process Industries. Leadership Roles. Cost/Schedule Control System Criteria. and Miscellaneous Topics Price per PPG: Download Member Price US$50. Benchmarking and Lessons Learned. Editor. 2007 Covers: Life-Cycle Cost Theory. Estimating Labor Costs. and International Project Controls PPG#3: Cost Engineering in Aerospace and Aviation Sarwar A. 2007 Covers: Dictionary. Planning and Scheduling. Design. Management of Change. Life-Cycle Cost Risk Analysis. Samad. and Value Engineering. and more. Gransberg. Design-Build (DB) – DB Estimating. Cost Control. Constructability.. Jr. Douglas D.. and Environmental Regulations. Gransberg.org . 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis. Asset Planning and Investment Decision-Making. Estimating Theory. PE CCE. Editor. Schedule Development. Editors. MIP-Modeled Additive Multiple Base. PE CCE. PE CCE. PPG #14: Portfolio and Program Management. Robert A. Editor. Subcontracting Costs. 2007 Covers: General Topics on International Projects. and Change Orders PPG #10: Project Delivery Methods. 2nd Ed. Actual Physical Percent Complete. Estimating International Construction Costs. Cost/Schedule Control. Dr. AACE International Transaction papers. Management of Construction Schedules. Risk Management. General Schedule Analysis Articles PPG #12: Construction Project Controls Dr. Editor. CM Scheduling. Douglas D. Douglas D. Estimating Factors and Indices. and Other Related Topics. MIP-Observational Dynamic Contemporaneous Split. PE CCE. PE. CCC. PPG #20: Forensic Schedule Analysis James G. CCC. Schedule Float Ownership. Cost Estimating. Other Energy Related Topics. Project Management. Teams. Evaluating Competing Sustainable Strategies: Other Techniques PPG #11: Environmental Remediation & Decommissioning. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in the International Context (PPGs) are a series of reference s that consists of selected Cost Engineering articles. PE. 2nd Ed. Competitive Bidding. Leo. and James E. Document Control. Manufacturing. Gransberg. Editor. James G. Brienzo. Contingency Analysis. Nuclear Power Plant. Natural Gas Industry. Editors. 2009 Covers: Environmental Remediation Planning and Scheduling Methodology. Capacity Factoring. Safety & Health. Evaluating Competing Sustainable Strategies: Using Value Engineering. International Project Delivery. Capital Investments. 2002 Covers: Introduction to Construction project Controls. Currency Rates. Dr. Editor. Applications of Earned Value Project Management. Thompson. Zack Jr. Scheduling. Labor Costs. Risk and Contingency. PPG #16: Cost Engineering in the Global Environment Kul B. Schedule Management/Control. Asset Performance Assessment and Change Management. Pricing of Delay. Estimating Sustainability. Project Management. 2nd Ed. 2006 Covers: Planning. Editor. and Systems PPG#21: Cost Engineering in the Process Industries Kul B. and Applicable AACE International Recommended Practices. CCC. Conceptual. Productivity and Earned More AACE Publications at the Online Store . Schedule Control. and Partnering. and Utility Property Valuation. Richard A. Project Controls. Zack. Escalation. Earned Value Reporting. Estimating Equipment Costs. Computer Applications. 2009 Covers: General Topics on Process Industries. Cost Estimating and Contingency. Koch. 2nd Ed. Editor. Editor. CCC. Basics of Schedule Delay Analysis. Research & Development. Schedule Control. Selg. Trevor X. Formulating Ways of Addressing Green Building Strategies and Associated Economic Costs.aacei. Economics of Environmental and Waste Management. DBB Scheduling. PE CEP. Project Controls. and Program Management. CM Project Management. Estimating Operating Costs. Cost Modeling. 2007 Covers: Auditing. Schedule. Rapp. Hannon. 2nd Ed. and Reporting. International Projects. Motivation. Utility Rates. 2007 Covers: Why Use Earned Value?. Quality Control. Uppal. PPG#8: Contingency. Marshall. McCuen.00 Price for the PPG Package includes all 21 PPGs: Download Member Price US$874. CCC. And Carla Lopez del Puerto. Macaluso.00 Download Non-Member Price US$1223. Construction Management (CM) – CM Estimating. and Classics. and Keith Molenaar. Profit. Gransberg. 2004 Covers: Parametric/Conceptual Estimating. www. AACE International Marriott Rivercenter Hotel San Antonio. WV 26505-1876 USA phone: 304-296-8444 fax: 304-291-5728 e-mail: [email protected]. AACE International Marriott Rivercenter Hotel San Antonio.org 8-11 AACE International’s 2012 Annual Meeting.org 60 COST ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012 .CALENDAR OF EVENTS MARCH 2012 15-18 2012 Western Winter Workshop.org JULY 2012 5-8 AACE International Education Seminars.aacei.com www. NV Contact: aacei.aacei.org Please submit items for future calendar listings at least 60 days in advance of desired publication.sf.org www. AACE International Hyatt Regency Dubai and Galleria Dubai. AACE International Marriott Rivercenter Hotel San Antonio. 1265 Suncrest Towne Centre Dr. San Francisco Bay Area Section of AACE International Harrah’s & Harveys Casino Resort Lake Tahoe. Morgantown. United Arab Emirates Contact: phone 1-800-858-COST fax (304) 291-5728 info@aacei. TX Contact: phone 1-800-858-COST fax (304) 291-5728 [email protected] www.org NOVEMBER 2012 14-15 AACE International’s International Total Cost Manage­ ment Conference. TX Contact: phone 1-800-858-COST fax (304) 291-5728 [email protected] 12-13 AACE International Education Seminars.aacei.2012@gmail. AACE International.org www. TX Contact: phone 1-800-858-COST fax (304) 291-5728 [email protected] www.aacei.org website: www.