The purpose of the AACE® International Recommended Practice 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis is to provide a unifying reference of basic technical principles and guidelines for the application of critical path method (CPM) scheduling in forensic schedule analysis. In providing this reference, the RP will foster competent schedule analysis and furnish the industry as whole with the necessary technical information to categorize and evaluate the varying forensic schedule analysis methods.

Attached are the presentation slides from the 55th Annual Meeting of the AACE International.

Recommended Practice 29R-03—Forensic Schedule Analysis, has aroused significant debate in the forensic scheduling community since its original publication in 2007. Now in its second revision, 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. During the development of the original RP, there was a proposal to include example analysis implementations, in so-called “cookbook” sections.

The first decade of the 21st century has brought the engineering and construction
industry into a new era of mega-projects. In the US, much of the post-WWII infrastructure has reached
the end of its life. We are replacing major highway interchanges, upgrading power distribution systems
with modern smart-grid technology, and breaking ground on the first new nuclear plants in 30 years. At
the same time, the developing world is leaping into the modern era with an unprecedented investment
in infrastructure, particularly in China.

This paper presents a Forensic Schedule Analysis (FSA) example implementation, prepared to address the application of procedures described in AACE International’s Recommended Practice on Forensic Schedule Analysis.

The last one percent of a project can be the most difficult portion to execute. Substantial completion is often the first milestone associated with delay computations.

Over the past few years, there has been much discussion of the use and over-use of the many features available in CPM scheduling software. As software packages and the schedules that they are used to create have become more complex, the underlying calculations that are performed have become obscured.

Mark Sanders is a contributing author to this AACE International Recommended Practice. One of the most contentious areas in construction claims is the calculation or estimation of lost productivity. Unlike direct costs, lost productivity is often not tracked or cannot be discerned separately and contemporaneously.

Change happens. Change is inevitable. The construction industry has accepted the fact that changes will occur on almost all construction projects. The industry is aware that changes often lead to disputes; but the knowledge that change is coming is not the same thing as being prepared for it. To determine whether we are truly prepared for change, we look to our contracts.

Contractors experience a loss of productivity when their work is disrupted. This paper evaluates various methods that have been used to estimate the cost of lost productivity and reviews the success or failure of those methods before contract boards of appeal and in courts of law.