In order to receive proof of
CEU credits, you must watch this presentation in its entirety and complete the
survey.
Level: Intermediate
TCM Section(s):
6.4. Forensic Performance Assessment
Venue: 2021 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: Concurrency, or the concept of concurrent delay, is often used as a defense when either the owner or contractor is identified as causing a delay. Yet the concept is rarely defined in construction contracts. This can cause confusion when the same contract is specific regarding the type of forensic delay analysis required when awarding an excusable and/or compensable time extension.
While this failure to address concurrency in the contract can lead to varying opinions and disputes on how best to correctly apply the concept, its absence from contracts may surprisingly lead to superior forensic results. This paper addresses the risk of incorporating concurrency definitions in contracts, provides an unbiased framework for measurement, and demonstrates the differences in allocations of responsibility between those contracts that address it directly and those that do not.
It will be demonstrated that proper critical path method (CPM) scheduling, with regular interval updates, allows for a forensic delay analysis that fully assesses concurrency. Evaluating contemporaneous delays on an update-to-update (same period) basis utilizing the concept of primacy of delay results in a defensible and accurate forensic analysis that removes much of the judgment often proffered when evaluating construction delays.
Level: Intermediate
TCM Section(s):
6.4. Forensic Performance Assessment
Venue: 2021 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: Concurrency, or the concept of concurrent delay, is often used as a defense when either the owner or contractor is identified as causing a delay. Yet the concept is rarely defined in construction contracts. This can cause confusion when the same contract is specific regarding the type of forensic delay analysis required when awarding an excusable and/or compensable time extension.
While this failure to address concurrency in the contract can lead to varying opinions and disputes on how best to correctly apply the concept, its absence from contracts may surprisingly lead to superior forensic results. This paper addresses the risk of incorporating concurrency definitions in contracts, provides an unbiased framework for measurement, and demonstrates the differences in allocations of responsibility between those contracts that address it directly and those that do not.
It will be demonstrated that proper critical path method (CPM) scheduling, with regular interval updates, allows for a forensic delay analysis that fully assesses concurrency. Evaluating contemporaneous delays on an update-to-update (same period) basis utilizing the concept of primacy of delay results in a defensible and accurate forensic analysis that removes much of the judgment often proffered when evaluating construction delays.