Level: Intermediate
Author(s): Scott A. Galbraith, PE CFCC; Michael T. Siburt, PE CCP PSP; John C. Livengood, Esq. CCP CFCC PSP FAACE
Venue: 2017 AACE International Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL
Abstract: As-Planned versus As-Built forensic schedule analysis is a method used to identify and quantify delays and, most importantly, the delays that led to the later-than-planned completion of a project. The intent of this paper is to provide the reader with an overview of As-Planned versus As-Built forensic schedule delay analysis. The Method Implementation Protocols (MIP) for this type of analysis are presented in AACE® International’s (AACE) Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis (RP29R-03), Section 3.1 Observational / Static / Gross (MIP 3.1) and Section 3.2 Observational / Static / Periodic (MIP 3.2).
The selection of the schedule delay analysis methodology used for a dispute arising from a particular project ultimately is the responsibility of the schedule analyst. In many situations, the methodology chosen may be based on requirements of the contract between the parties. In other situations, the schedule analyst is free to choose the methodology he or she feels best communicates his or her opinions based on the facts of the dispute and available contemporaneous project documentation. This paper presents information about the procedures associated with MIP 3.1 and MIP 3.2 for consideration by the schedule analyst as may be applicable to the specific dispute at hand.
Author(s): Scott A. Galbraith, PE CFCC; Michael T. Siburt, PE CCP PSP; John C. Livengood, Esq. CCP CFCC PSP FAACE
Venue: 2017 AACE International Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL
Abstract: As-Planned versus As-Built forensic schedule analysis is a method used to identify and quantify delays and, most importantly, the delays that led to the later-than-planned completion of a project. The intent of this paper is to provide the reader with an overview of As-Planned versus As-Built forensic schedule delay analysis. The Method Implementation Protocols (MIP) for this type of analysis are presented in AACE® International’s (AACE) Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis (RP29R-03), Section 3.1 Observational / Static / Gross (MIP 3.1) and Section 3.2 Observational / Static / Periodic (MIP 3.2).
The selection of the schedule delay analysis methodology used for a dispute arising from a particular project ultimately is the responsibility of the schedule analyst. In many situations, the methodology chosen may be based on requirements of the contract between the parties. In other situations, the schedule analyst is free to choose the methodology he or she feels best communicates his or her opinions based on the facts of the dispute and available contemporaneous project documentation. This paper presents information about the procedures associated with MIP 3.1 and MIP 3.2 for consideration by the schedule analyst as may be applicable to the specific dispute at hand.