Level: Advanced
Venue: 2019 AACE International Conference & Expo, June 16-19, 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA
Abstract: While concurrent delay and pacing are seldom explicitly found by triers-of-fact, concurrency theory application and its relationship to pacing remains a major analytical and practical element in forensic delay analysis. AACE International’s (AACE) RP29R-03 (2011) and the more recent Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol (2017) both address these topics in some detail, but significant issues remain poorly understood and commonly misapplied by experts and triers-of-fact. This paper reviews the current theory, application, and miscomprehension of concurrency and pacing as reflected in expert literature and legal decisions. Further, the paper explores whether a party’s intent concerning a concurrent or pacing delay makes a difference – or should make a difference – in a determination on concurrency or pacing.
Venue: 2019 AACE International Conference & Expo, June 16-19, 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA
Abstract: While concurrent delay and pacing are seldom explicitly found by triers-of-fact, concurrency theory application and its relationship to pacing remains a major analytical and practical element in forensic delay analysis. AACE International’s (AACE) RP29R-03 (2011) and the more recent Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol (2017) both address these topics in some detail, but significant issues remain poorly understood and commonly misapplied by experts and triers-of-fact. This paper reviews the current theory, application, and miscomprehension of concurrency and pacing as reflected in expert literature and legal decisions. Further, the paper explores whether a party’s intent concerning a concurrent or pacing delay makes a difference – or should make a difference – in a determination on concurrency or pacing.