Level: Advanced
TCM Section(s):
9.2. Progress and Performance Measurement
Venue: 2023 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: Delays are an unfortunate reality on almost all construction projects. “Time of the essence” clauses cause contractors to inevitably alter the CPM schedule to demonstrate that the issue is being mitigated. These adjustments come with inherent risk, as the mitigation can alter the true critical path of the project. Many attempts at mitigation can be helpful – if they are achievable and realistic. However, if the mitigation is only occurring in the schedule, not in reality (e.g., paper mitigation), the contractor unknowingly absorbs the risk and may be exposing themselves to unintended consequences.
To understand this risk, the authors have performed both a comprehensive contemporaneous period analysis (MIP 3.3) and a detailed as-planned versus as-built analysis (MIP 3.2) and compared the results. This comprehensive real-world analysis, performed at the request of an Arbitration tribunal, gives a highly accurate and unbiased picture of the delays, and how the different methodologies proffered in 29R-03 measure the impacts.
This paper will demonstrate: 1) the risks associated with paper mitigation, 2) how the two MIPs handle impacts and mitigation, 3) the similarities and differences between the two MIPs, and 4) the importance of mitigation being based on actual capabilities and contractor production.
TCM Section(s):
9.2. Progress and Performance Measurement
Venue: 2023 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: Delays are an unfortunate reality on almost all construction projects. “Time of the essence” clauses cause contractors to inevitably alter the CPM schedule to demonstrate that the issue is being mitigated. These adjustments come with inherent risk, as the mitigation can alter the true critical path of the project. Many attempts at mitigation can be helpful – if they are achievable and realistic. However, if the mitigation is only occurring in the schedule, not in reality (e.g., paper mitigation), the contractor unknowingly absorbs the risk and may be exposing themselves to unintended consequences.
To understand this risk, the authors have performed both a comprehensive contemporaneous period analysis (MIP 3.3) and a detailed as-planned versus as-built analysis (MIP 3.2) and compared the results. This comprehensive real-world analysis, performed at the request of an Arbitration tribunal, gives a highly accurate and unbiased picture of the delays, and how the different methodologies proffered in 29R-03 measure the impacts.
This paper will demonstrate: 1) the risks associated with paper mitigation, 2) how the two MIPs handle impacts and mitigation, 3) the similarities and differences between the two MIPs, and 4) the importance of mitigation being based on actual capabilities and contractor production.