Level: Intermediate
TCM Section(s):
6.4. Forensic Performance Assessment
7.2. Schedule Planning and Development
Venue: 2023 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: In AACE International’s Recommended Practice 29R-03, Method Implementation Protocol 3.3 (“MIP 3.3”) is an observational, dynamic, contemporaneous as-is schedule delay analysis methodology used to identify and quantify project schedule delay. MIP 3.3 examines work activities within an analysis period (or window) which is typically based on a contractor’s contemporaneous monthly schedule updates. The methodology includes a comparison of planned or forecasted dates and durations at the start of the analysis window to actual or as-built information found at the end of the analysis window. Focus is usually placed on critical and near-critical path work activities through the analysis window.
From the perspective of the contractor, the objective of the methodology is to identify, quantify, and allocate compensable delay days that were the owner’s responsibility as well as assess concurrent contractor-responsible delay and/or contractor pacing delays. Although MIP 3.3 provides some general guidelines, the development of a more comprehensive and detailed procedure for assessing contractor-responsible concurrent delay and pacing issues would be beneficial. This paper explores the complexities and appropriateness of assessing compensable, concurrent, and pacing delays when using MIP 3.3, and proposes a sensible, comprehensive, and detailed procedure for assessing contractor-caused concurrency and pacing issues within an analysis window.
TCM Section(s):
6.4. Forensic Performance Assessment
7.2. Schedule Planning and Development
Venue: 2023 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: In AACE International’s Recommended Practice 29R-03, Method Implementation Protocol 3.3 (“MIP 3.3”) is an observational, dynamic, contemporaneous as-is schedule delay analysis methodology used to identify and quantify project schedule delay. MIP 3.3 examines work activities within an analysis period (or window) which is typically based on a contractor’s contemporaneous monthly schedule updates. The methodology includes a comparison of planned or forecasted dates and durations at the start of the analysis window to actual or as-built information found at the end of the analysis window. Focus is usually placed on critical and near-critical path work activities through the analysis window.
From the perspective of the contractor, the objective of the methodology is to identify, quantify, and allocate compensable delay days that were the owner’s responsibility as well as assess concurrent contractor-responsible delay and/or contractor pacing delays. Although MIP 3.3 provides some general guidelines, the development of a more comprehensive and detailed procedure for assessing contractor-responsible concurrent delay and pacing issues would be beneficial. This paper explores the complexities and appropriateness of assessing compensable, concurrent, and pacing delays when using MIP 3.3, and proposes a sensible, comprehensive, and detailed procedure for assessing contractor-caused concurrency and pacing issues within an analysis window.