Skip to main content

(CDR-2568) What’s in a Name? – Forensic Delay Methodologies

Level: Intermediate
Author(s): Roger R. Nelson, PE; Bernard Ong
Venue: 2017 AACE International Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL

Abstract: Forensic schedule delay practitioners seem to be in the midst of a contest to invent new names for familiar forensic schedule delay methodologies. Despite the publication of AACE® RP No. 29R-03 in 2007, the number of new names for similar, if not identical methodologies, has grown – and continues to grow. Furthermore, it’s unclear if a consensus among practitioners has been made on the names of the more frequently referenced methodologies. In the past decade since the publication of AACE® RP No. 29R-03, books, articles, and methodological guides have been published that rename familiar methodologies and occasionally try to repackage them into substantively different methodologies. For example, the UK-based Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol has identified two methods of “Windows.” One appears to be a Contemporaneous Period Analysis (MIP 3.3) and the other seems to be an As-Planned vs. As-Built (MIP 3.2). This paper surveys publications and journals in an effort to make sense of the nomenclature and identify consensus - if any. Methodologies described in the sources are inventoried by name, and categorized into the system developed in AACE® RP No. 29R-03, or if appropriate, into new categories.