The document presents forensic schedule analysis techniques based on the AACEI Recommended Practice 29R-03, which is aimed at understanding deviations from baseline schedules for legal proceedings. It outlines the purpose, structure, and methodologies involved in forensic scheduling, such as the concurrent delay principles and various analysis methods like as-planned vs. as-built and windows analysis. The document emphasizes the importance of established standards and practices within the forensic scheduling field to minimize subjectivity and enhance transparency in analyses.

1. Forensic Schedule Analysis Techniques: Unveiling the Mystery Using the
AACEi Recommended Practice 29R-03
Presented to:
Dr. Anamaria Popescu, PE,PSP, PMP
McLachlan Lister-Hill International Australia
February 28, 2012

2. Anamaria Popescu
 Associate Director-McLL in Brisbane
 Project Auditing Services
 Project Controls Implementation
 Construction Claims Expertise
 Forensic Schedule Analysis
 Joined Hill International in 2011
 Consulting to the Oil and Gas Industry
 University of Texas at Austin
 Civil Engineering/CEPM Program
 PhD in Schedule Analysis
 PM at Enron

3. Presentation Objectives
 Definition of Forensic Scheduling
 General structure of RP 29R-03
 Taxonomy
 Intro to Schedule Analysis Methodologies
 Concurrent Delay Principles
 Factors to Consider When Selecting a Method

4. A Good Indication….
That You Need a F.S. Expert….Soon!!!

5. Forensic Scheduling: Definition
The study of event interaction using CPM
or other recognized schedule calculation
models to understand the significance of
deviations from a baseline for potential
use in legal proceedings.

6. Forensic Scheduling Attributes
 Analyses performed retrospectively
 Actual delay impacts are known
 Expert simulates either awareness or
unawareness of actual impact:
“Hindsight vs. Foresight” School of Thought

7. Forensic Scheduling Interactions
• Schedules
• Software
• Project Documents
Delay Damages
Delay Resp.
Forensic
Schedule
Analysis
• Methodologies
• Delay Quantification
• Delay Causation Legal
Entitlement
• Contractual
Interpretation

8. Overview of Forensic Scheduling
 Reactive vs. Proactive Scheduling
 Schedule protocols are more stringent than
with proactive scheduling
 Methodologies subject to manipulation
 Involve judgment calls by the analyst whether
in preparation or in interpretation.
 Level of accuracy function of:
 Quality of the data
 Assumptions and experience of the
analyst

9. What’s the Problem?
 No standards of practice on the methods
 What they are called
 Definition of…
 How to perform one correctly
 Circumstances for use
 Many users not even aware that no standards exit
 Subjectivity becomes prevalent
 Consultants have their “pet” methodologies
 Are not held accountable for accuracy or validity of
implementation

10. What is RP 29R-03?
 A free publication of AACEi
 Recommended Practice for
performing forensic CPM
schedule analyses
 Latest Revision-April 25,
2011
 Becoming a known
standard in the industry and
in litigation

11. History of RP 29R-03
 RP 29R-03 Originated with AACEi in 2003
 Proposal that the Claims and Dispute Resolution
(CDR) Committee write a RP on schedule delay
analysis
 The purpose was to establish “reliable principles and
methods.”
 Committee was formed on a volunteer basis
– Open to anyone
– 20 co-authors
– More than 100 reviewers
 Official Release: June 25, 2007

12. The Purpose of 29R-03
 To provide a unifying technical reference for
the forensic application of critical path
method (CPM) scheduling analyses
 Goal is to:
 Minimize procedural subjectivity
 Increase transparency in forensic analyses
 To be an advisory document
 To be used in conjunction with professional
judgment, experience, and knowledge of the
subject matter.

13. Where is the RP Located?
www.aacei.org/resources
13

14. Where is the RP Located?

15. RP 29R-03 Structure
Part 1. Organization & Scope
1.1. Introduction
1.2 Basic Premise & Assumptions
1.3 Scope & Focus
1.4 Taxonomy & Nomenclature
1.5 Underlying Fundamentals & General Principles
Part 2. Source Validation Protocols
Part 3. Method Implementation Protocols
Part 4. Analysis Interpretation Protocols
Part 5. Choosing a Method

16. Layer 1: Timing
Layer 2: Basic Methods
Layer 3: Specific Methods
Layer 4: Basic Implementation
Layer 5: Fixed Periods vs. Variable Layer 5: Global (Insertion/Extraction)
Periods vs. Stepped (Insertion/ Extraction)
As-Planned Reconstructed Time
Windows Impacted Collapsed As-Built
Vs. Half-Step Update Impact
Analysis As-Planned “But-for” Analysis
As-Built Analysis Analysis

17. Observational Techniques

18. As-Planned vs. As-Built
 Comparison of start/finish dates between two schedule updates
 Purely mathematical-Variance between dates

19. As-Planned vs. As-Built
Delayed Completion
1 Early Start
2 Overall Delay
3
4
As-Planned
As-Built
1 Delayed Start
2 Early Completion
3

20. As-Planned vs. As-Built
 When should it be used?
 Limited time and money
 No electronic schedules
 Inadequate schedule logic
 Quick and dirty 1st pass
 What does the Schedule Analysis Method Best
Prove?
 Excusable non-compensable delay

21. As-Planned vs. As-Built
 Not Good For:
– Concurrent delays or acceleration
– Critical path changes between updates
– Multiple critical or near-critical paths per update
– Recovering extended overhead costs
– Arbitration or Litigation
 Pros:
– Easy to understand, explain, and graphically depict
– Technically simple to perform
 Data Required:
– Baseline schedule
– As-built schedule

22. Windows Analysis
 Definition
– Observational Forward-looking technique
– Quantify loss or gain of time along a float path
– Loss and gains tallied by window
– A “window” is the time period framed between two
revisions:
• The as-planned schedule for the beginning of the
window
• The as-built schedule for the end of the window

23. Windows Analysis
Jan 2006
ID Task Name Dur
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
1 Excavate 2d
Ì
2 1d
3 Form / Rebar 3d
¬¬
Gain =
4
5 Concrete
4d
3d
+
Ì Ì ¬¬
6 4d Delay =
7
8
Strip Forms 1d
1d
¬¬ ¬¬ --
9 Inspect 1d
10 1d
¬¬ ¬¬ ¬¬ ¬¬
Gain 1 1 2
Null 0 0
Delay -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -7
Net 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5

24. Windows Analysis
 When Should the Schedule Analysis Method be
Used?
– Complex schedules with large critical paths
– Very high delay damages
– Concurrent delays
– Client has the time and budget
– Need graphical depiction of concurrency
 What does the Schedule Analysis Method Best
Prove?
– Excusable non-compensable delay
– Excusable compensable delay
– Concurrent delays
– Non-excusable delay

25. Modeled Techniques

26. Impacted As-Planned
 Definition
– Insertion of impact activities into a baseline or
update schedule
– Integrated into the network logic before, in-
between, or after the activity it affected
– Additive model that simulates the possible effect
of actual delay events to the schedule completion
date
– Comparison of IAP schedule and succeeding
update to determine possible acceleration or non-
excusable delays
– Comparison of IAP schedule and planned
schedule to determine time extension

27. Impacted As-Planned:(Acceleration)
6/20
As-Built Schedule
Acc
5
6/25
IAP Schedule

28. Impacted As-Planned:(Time Extension Example)
6/18
(2 Days)
6/20
IAP Schedule

29. Impacted As-Planned
 When Should the Schedule Analysis Method be
Used?
– Indemnification of liquidated damages
– For preliminary negotiations between owner and
contractor
 What does the Schedule Analysis Method Best
Prove?
– Requests for Time Extension or LD Waivers
– Acceleration Claims

30. Collapsed As-Built
 Definition
– Subtractive model that simulates the effect of
extracting delays from the schedule on the completion
date
– Create a Simulated As-Built Schedule (actual float)
– Find the As-Built Critical Path based on driving
activities
– Remove entire activities or decrease durations, lags
– “But-for” this delay, I would have finished on x date

31. Collapsed As-Built

32. Collapsed As-Built
 When Should the Schedule Analysis Method be
Used?
– Need to prove concurrency of delays
– Need to recover Extended Overhead Costs
 What does the Schedule Analysis Method Best
Prove?
– Concurrent delays
– Excusable compensable delays

33. Concurrent Delay
‘S

34. Concurrent Delay - Requirements
 Two or more delays during the “same” time
 There can only be one unit of delay during the same
unit of time, regardless of the number of delaying
events
 Delays unrelated and independent
 Must delay the critical path
 Responsibility of different parties
 Each party bears its own expenses for that delay
 Involuntary (i.e., not “pacing”)
 Substantial and not easily curable

35. Concurrency: Graphical Representation
TF=0
2 delays
in the same time
frame & CP=
concurrent
delay
TF=0

36. Concurrency: Net Affect Matrix

37. Critical Path: Longest Path vs. Negative Float
Theory
 The Negative Float Theory
– criticality on any activity that has negative total float relative to a
contractual milestone.
– any delays, occasioned by negative total float, occurring during the
same measurement period are potential candidates for concurrency.
 The Longest Path Theory
– 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 not critical
 Concurrency analyses should always be consistent
with the contracts’ definition of criticality

38. Literal vs. Functional Concurrency
 Literal Concurrency
– Delays have to be literally concurrent
in time, as in “happening at the same
time”
 Functional Concurrency
– Delays need only occur in the same
analysis period or window

39. Literal Concurrency
 Delays literally happening at the same time
 Both delays must be on the critical path
 First delay (chronologically) creates float for
subsequent delays – even if only one day apart
 Far fewer findings of concurrency than
functional theory

40. Literal Concurrency Example
Foundations Structural Steel
4
Roof
4
Curtainwall 1
Interior Finishes Punch
4
Coord. Dwgs. 4
List
Fab/Delv. MEP Rough In MEP Finishes 1
3
Months 2 4 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Steel
Foundations Delay Literal Concurrency 1 Month
Structural Steel
4
Roof Excusable/
1 4 Non-Compensable
Delay
Curtainwall 1
Coord.
Dwg Interior Finishes Punch
4
Coord. Dwgs. Delay 4
List
Fab/Delv. MEP Rough In
3 1 MEP Finishes 1
2 4 3

41. Literal Concurrency
Months
3 4 5 6
Foundations
Steel
Delay Structural Steel
30 CDs
Coord. Dwg
Coord. Dwgs. Fab/Delv.
Delay
30 CDs

42. Literal Concurrency
Months
3 4 5 6
Foundations
Steel
Delay Structural Steel
Steel delay starts
two days before 30 CDs
Coord. Dwg. delay
Coord. Dwg
Coord. Dwgs. Fab/Delv.
Delay
28 CDs
No longer concurrent? RP: “If the first delay started on day1, and
the second delay started on day 2, they
would not be concurrent”

43. Functional Concurrency
 Delays occurring within the same analysis period or window
 Sequential delays within a period may be viewed as concurrent
 More liberal identification of concurrent delays than Literal theory
 If reduce analysis to single day periods, Functional may be same
as Literal

44. Functional Concurrency
Foundations
Structural Steel
4
Roof
4
Curtainwall 1
Interior Finishes Punch
4
Coord. Dwgs. 4
List
Fab/Delv. MEP Rough In MEP Finishes 1
3
Months 2 4 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Foundations Steel
Excusable/ 1 Month
Delay Structural Steel
4 Non-Compensable
Roof Delay
1 4
NTP Curtainwall 1
Interior Finishes Punch
4
Coord. Dwgs. Duct List
Delay 4
Fab/Delv. MEP Rough In MEP Finishes 1
3
2 1 3 3

45. Schedule Update Month 5
Foundations
Structural Steel
4
Roof
4
Curtainwall 1
Interior Finishes Punch
4
Coord. Dwgs. 4
List
Fab/Delv. MEP Rough In MEP Finishes 1
3
Months 2 4 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Foundations Steel
Delay 1 Month
Structural Steel
4 Excusable/
Roof Compensable
1 4
Delay
NTP Curtainwall 1
Interior Finishes Punch
4
Coord. Dwgs. 4
List
Fab/Delv. MEP Rough In MEP Finishes 1
3
2 3 3

46. Schedule Update Month 7
Foundations Steel
Delay
4
Roof
1 4
NTP Curtainwall 1
Interior Finishes Punch
4
Coord. Dwgs. 4
List
Fab/Delv. MEP Rough In MEP Finishes 1
3
Months 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Foundations Steel
Delay Structural Steel No Additional
4
Delay
Roof
1 4
NTP Curtainwall 1
Interior Finishes Punch
4
Coord. Dwgs. Duct List
Delay 4
Fab/Delv. MEP Rough In MEP Finishes 1
3 4
2 1

47. Pacing vs. Concurrency: What’s the Difference?

48. Pacing
 Pacing is a conscious choice by the
performing party to proceed at a slower
rate of work with the knowledge of the
other contemporaneous delay
Answers the Question:
Why hurry up and wait?

49. Demonstrating Pacing
 Requires existence of a parent delay that precedes the paced
activity
 Show that the paced activity could have been completed on
time (implies pacing party could reasonably estimate when the
parent delay would end)
 Evidence of contemporaneous intent (conscious decision to
pace work)
 Notification in writing submitted prior to pacing

50. Pacing
Months
3 4 5 6
Deliver Structural Steel
Owner
Steel Changes Structural Steel
Contractor delay pacing 30 CDs
Owner steel delay
Contractor
Foundations Delay
28 CDs

51. Choosing a Method: Factors to Consider
1. Contractual Requirements
2. Purpose of Analysis
3. Source Data Availability and Reliability
4. Size of the Dispute
5. Complexity of the Dispute
6. Budget for Forensic Schedule Analysis
7. Time Allowed for Forensic Schedule Analysis
8. Expertise of the Forensic Schedule Analyst
9. Available Resources
10. Resolution Forum and Audience
11. Legal or Procedural Requirements

52. Contact Information
Brisbane Office
2/19 Musgrave Street
West End, QLD, 4101
Email: anamariap@mclachlanlister.com
Phone: 61 07 3255 0223
Sydney Office Perth Office
Level 1, 1 Hickson Road 189 Colin Place
Phone: 61 02 9241 7328 Phone: 61 08 9480 0647