Level:
Advanced
TCM Section(s):
6.4. Forensic Performance Assessment
Venue: 2022 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: Resolution of delay claim disputes is a challenging and contentious subject on many projects for which, both project parties try to employ a logically consistent approach in compliance with industry-accepted references to reach a mutual agreement on disputes or provide sufficient proof for possible legal proceedings related to the delay claims. One of the most controversial challenges in the resolution of delay claim disputes is the identification and quantification of concurrent delays. Since most contracts are silent or ambiguous on this issue, comprehensive references and resources are mostly used by contracting parties to support their claims. AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 published for forensic schedule analysis (hereinafter RP 29R-03) as one of the industry-accepted references explains two different approaches (literal and functional theories) to facilitate the process of identification and quantification of the concurrent delays. Understanding whether both theories can be selected under any circumstances, or the applicable theory is dictated by way of contract language and/or projects technical considerations, is an important consideration for a delay analyst. Requirements, challenges, and practical experiences in selection of the preferred theory will be discussed in detail in this article using an infrastructure project as a case study.
TCM Section(s):
6.4. Forensic Performance Assessment
Venue: 2022 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: Resolution of delay claim disputes is a challenging and contentious subject on many projects for which, both project parties try to employ a logically consistent approach in compliance with industry-accepted references to reach a mutual agreement on disputes or provide sufficient proof for possible legal proceedings related to the delay claims. One of the most controversial challenges in the resolution of delay claim disputes is the identification and quantification of concurrent delays. Since most contracts are silent or ambiguous on this issue, comprehensive references and resources are mostly used by contracting parties to support their claims. AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 published for forensic schedule analysis (hereinafter RP 29R-03) as one of the industry-accepted references explains two different approaches (literal and functional theories) to facilitate the process of identification and quantification of the concurrent delays. Understanding whether both theories can be selected under any circumstances, or the applicable theory is dictated by way of contract language and/or projects technical considerations, is an important consideration for a delay analyst. Requirements, challenges, and practical experiences in selection of the preferred theory will be discussed in detail in this article using an infrastructure project as a case study.