Audience Focus: Intermediate
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: TUE 2:00-3:00/Salon C
Abstract: The most critical milestone of any project, with few exceptions, is the final completion date. Failing to achieve this target can mean lost revenues for the owner and liquidated damages for the contractor, among other undesirable effects. In the face of project delays, a contractor may make the decision to accelerate. At times, the contractor will be compelled by the owner to accelerate its performance in order to meet certain milestones in accordance with the original schedule or a revised plan for completing the project. This paper will discuss the costs of different types of acceleration programs, along with the inherent risks and benefits associated with each approach. What does a contractor need to understand and communicate in order to know or prove its full impact? The discussion will focus on the often unforeseen costs of acceleration and will attempt to prompt decision-makers to ask the question: Is the benefit of accelerating the work going to outweigh the ultimate cost? (CDR-1047) How to Win at Mediation
Primary Author: Dr Kathleen M J Harmon Harmon/York Associates Inc
Co-author(s): Mr. Steven J. Weber Husch Blackwell, LLP
Audience Focus: Advanced
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: SUN 1:30-2:30/Salon B
Abstract: Since the 1980s mediation has become more and more popular in resolving construction disputes. It is a consensual, non-binding process purported to give the participants a win-win solution. However in the past 5-10 years it has become not only the de facto methodology for most disputes, but also formulaic. Mediators claim “success” when the parties settle, but do settlement really equate to success or merely an end….with little or no satisfaction other then relief the dispute is over? The authors, from two different perspectives, as a consultant and advocate, will detail several different techniques to allow you to “win” at mediation. Winning means maximizing your returns, being satisfied with the outcome and the process not simply relieved its over. They will discuss the criteria for choosing a mediator, tactics to bring your opponent to your way of thinking, how to “manage” the mediator to make him an effective advocate for your position, and strategies to boost settlements. (CDR-1048) Use of Project Controls on Mega-Projects to Minimize Disputes
Primary Author: Dr Kathleen M J Harmon Harmon/York Associates Inc
Co-author(s): Mr Bruce M Stephan PE PMA Consultants, LLC
Audience Focus: Advanced
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: MON 3:45-4:45/Salon C
Abstract: Have you ever wondered how to develop a project controls system and if the investment in computerized project controls systems, as well as the staff to collect and analyze the data and maintain the system itself, is worth the investment? It has always been a challenge to answer this question, since the cost of project controls is real cost of a project. Can the investment in manpower and costs be justified? Also is a dispute resolution program as a part of the project controls system a justifiable cost? Is it necessary? Viable? Cost effective? Our purpose is to discuss these questions, explaining the key components of a successful project controls and dispute resolution program. (CDR-1056) (Panel Discussion) Smart-Money Guide to the RP/FSA: The Least Cost Way to Achieve Good-Faith Compliance
Primary Author: Mr Kenji P Hoshino CFCC PSP Project Controls & Forensics LLC
Co-author(s): Mr Christopher W Carson PSP Alpha Corporation; Mr Jeffrey E Fuchs PE Delta Consulting Group, Inc; Mr Christopher J Brasco Esq Watt Tieder Hoffar & Fitzgerald; Mr Brett Broadhead PCL
Audience Focus: Advanced
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: MON 2:00-3:00/Salon C
Abstract: The AACE Recommended Practice for Forensic Schedule Analysis (29R-03), introduced in 2007, continues to gain industry adherents who use it voluntarily to standardize in-house delay analysis procedures. While the RP is praised for its thoroughness and the detailed recommended procedures some perceive it as creating too high a bar for compliance on delay disputes involving modest amounts and for use in pre-litigation settlement efforts.
This panel discussion, led by the RPs author, provides guidance on the least cost way to achieve good-faith compliance with the recommendations along with a reasoned phased compliance approach from the early settlement work product through final expert testimony. (CDR-815) Forensic Schedule Analysis - Chapter 2: Delay Analysis on Non-CPM Scheduled Projects
Primary Author: Mr James G Zack Jr CFCC Navigant Consulting, Inc.
Co-author(s): Mr. Steven A. Collins Navigant Consulting, Inc.
Audience Focus: Advanced
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: MON 10:00-11:00/Salon C
Abstract: AACE International Recommended Practice 29R-03 – Forensic Schedule Analysis, provides detailed insight in how CPM based schedule delay analysis should be performed. This RP provides thorough and detailed protocols for each of the nine methodologies identified. However, industry surveys from around the globe indicate that a substantial portion of construction projects do not employ critical path method scheduling techniques. Other industry studies indicate that a large percentage of projects complete later than planned. Therefore, it can only be concluded that there are a large number of delays and delay claims on projects that do not use CPM schedules. RP 29R-03 offers no guidance concerning the performance of schedule delay analysis if there are no CPM schedules on the project. This paper presents recommendations on how schedule delay analysis can be performed on projects using nine different non-CPM scheduling techniques. The paper also discusses the five types of constraints present on most, if not all, construction projects and how these constraints must be used in non-CPM schedule delay analysis. The goal of this paper is to initiate Chapter 2 of RP 29R-03 – Forensic Schedule Analysis on Projects with No CPM Schedules. (CDR-842) Multi-Primes and Multiple Critical Paths
Primary Author: Mr John C Livengood CFCC PSP ARCADIS
Audience Focus: Intermediate
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: TUE 3:45-4:45/Salon C
Abstract: Numerous states throughout the country require or permit governmental entities to perform major construction through the use of multiple prime contractors. These multi-prime contract laws that usually include a general contractor and at least three mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) contractors, were intended to reduce costs to the owner through greater competition and reduced redundant overheads. While there is evidence that the intended purpose succeeds –– that success only follows from a vigorous management system that actively coordinates work between the multi-primes, either through additional owner staff or paid consultants. Unfortunately, an all-too-common result of this delivery system, when the management system misfires, is the development of separate CPM schedules for each prime contractor, with critical path delays along each schedule, which leads to schedule chaos. This paper will discuss how forensic schedule analysis should approach, identify, dissect, and quantify delays among multi-primes as the parties prepare for litigation. (CDR-850) A Model for Construction Delays Claims Assessment
Primary Author: Mr Sasan Golnaraghi Concordia University
Co-author(s): Dr Sabah Alkass P Eng Concordia University
Audience Focus: Intermediate
Application Type: Theoretical
Time/Location: WED 9:45-10:45/Salon C
Abstract: Disputes in the construction industry originate from delays. These delays affect project parties, the contractor and the owner. Loss of either anticipated revenue or opportunity cost and time overrun, on the owner’s side, and increased overhead cost, escalation cost and liquidated damages, on the contractor’s side, are the main impacts of delays. Preparing delay claims is a time and resource consuming process. Facilitating this process will benefit both project parties. This paper presents a new systematic delay analysis technique to assist in the evaluation of concurrent delays, while considering the critical path of the project. This technique allocates delays among project parties. An expert system is designed to classify different types of delays, as well as to offer recommendations on delays or delaying events. The expert system and the proposed delay analysis technique are integrated with scheduling software. Likewise, a costs computing feature enhances the capability of the system and assists the analyst to reduce the time and cost associated with delay claim preparation. This paper discusses the new delay analysis technique. (CDR-867) Estimating Escalation Experienced During Project Delay - A Case Study
Primary Author: Mr William E Kraus PE FRICS CCE International Aviation Consultants
Audience Focus: Intermediate
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: SUN 4:30-5:30/Salon A
Abstract: Faced with a proposal for escalation costs when a contractor was delayed in completing the latter phases of a project, estimators needed to benchmark the extent to which construction costs had changed from the original substantial completion date to the anticipated revised substantial completion date. The contractor’s proposal, which consisted of a 4 percent increase across-the-board, at first seemed reasonable, even though the proposal also contained remobilization costs that were clearly not. Estimators developed a scheme by which the extent to which costs had escalated was estimated via two different methods – one, by comparing bid costs by the contractor on two individual projects it had bid at the airport in the approximate timeframe of the delay, and a second, by sampling costs from the airports cost database appropriate to the delayed project over the same timeframe. The two different methods yielded similar results and the owner offered a compromise settlement to the contractor. At the time of completion of this paper, the contractor is contemplating the offered settlement. (CDR-870) Forensic Schedule Analysis: Example Implementations, Part 3
Primary Author: Mr Mark C Sanders PE CCE PSP Alpha3 Consulting LLC
Audience Focus: Advanced
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: MON 11:15-12:15/Salon C
Abstract: This is the final installment in a series of papers presenting example forensic schedule analyses performed according to the Method Implementation Protocols outlined in AACE International’s Recommended Practice 29R-03. This paper presents the remaining analysis methods—MIPs 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.9. Each of these techniques is a variation on one of the techniques previously presented. This paper focuses on comparisons between the techniques and the reasons behind the different results found in each analysis. Finally, recommendations are provided for the continued development of example analyses, the continued refinement of analysis techniques, and the development of industry consensus in the area of objective forensic schedule analysis. (CDR-876) When's the Measured Mile, Not the Measured Mile?
Primary Author: Mr Mark F Nagata PSP Trauner Consulting Services, Inc.
Co-author(s): Ms Elizabeth Bradford Trauner Consulting Services, Inc.
Audience Focus: Intermediate
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: TUE 9:45-10:45/Salon C
Abstract: Whenever the term “measured mile” is used to describe a productivity analysis, the reader’s first impression is that the results of that analysis must be reliable. The method compares the contractor’s achieved productivity during impacted and un-impacted periods to calculate its inefficiency resulting from impact, using resources expressed in terms of a measurable quantity, typically resources performed (quantity of work) over resources expended (labor hours), to provide an inefficiency factor. However, the “measured mile” analysis has been used to measure productivity using variables other than resources performed and resources expended, often providing less favorable or unreliable results. Some analysts merely compare the contractor’s data in two separate time periods, and use information other than quantity of work performed and labor hours expended to complete the work, like percent of work complete, actual costs, or a variation of both that do not always provide a reliable measure of productivity. The intent of this paper is to identify different methods used to calculate the contractor’s productivity and the weaknesses of those approaches. (CDR-923) Recommended Contractual Methods for Resolving Delay Events Prospectively or Retrospectively
Primary Author: Mr Patrick M Kelly PSP ARCADIS-US
Audience Focus: Advanced
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: WED 8:00-9:00/Salon C
Abstract: The reality of construction projects is that the oft-mandated methodology for granting a contract time extension is ignored during the press of work. This can result in a significant change in the risk allocation between the parties. The traditional risk allocation model requires performing a prospective time impact analysis (TIA), with agreements on time and money prior to corrective work commencing. Yet, when the work is performed before negotiation, the risk allocation has shifted significantly. This paper makes recommendations for two contractual paths for resolution of changes with potential time impacts, to balance risk and responsibility for cost control. The first method, occurring prior to the start of corrective work, uses a prospective TIA to determine entitlement to time, and bilateral negotiation to manage costs. The second method occurs immediately upon completion of corrective work, tracks costs through stringent time and material cost accounting, and determines time through a contemporaneous period analysis. Having two methods for resolution gives project managers additional tools to resolve time-related issues early and prior to contract completion, minimizing potential disputes. (CDR-948) Using the Measured Mile to Increase Calculated Delay Quantum
Primary Author: Mr Glen R Palmer CFCC PSP GR Palmer Consulting Services
Co-author(s): Mr. Jeffery L. Ottesen PE CFCC PSP Alta Cascade Inc
Audience Focus: Advanced
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: TUE 11:00-12:00/Salon C
Abstract: Traditionally, productivity analyses and delay analyses have been treated separately as two different methodologies and have usually been prepared as separate work products. In reality, however, both analyses address productivity issues. A delay analysis can be used, in part, as a measure of the inefficient use of project time. A productivity analysis measures the inefficient use of project resources. This paper will attempt to draw correlations between these two types of analyses and show a conceptual methodology that can be used to increase the calculated delay quantum of a delay analysis by using the results of a “measured mile” analysis. Using this methodology it is possible to increase the number of days for which time driven cost damages are attributable to another party. (CDR-963) Case Study of a CM’s QA/QC Performance Using the TCM Framework
Primary Author: Mr William M Hart PE CFCC PSP Marsh USA
Abstract: This case study examines the role of the construction manager (CM) in quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) in the framework of total cost management (TCM), as described by AACE International. How the typical CM-agent may succeed or fail is seen by means of a case study – the expert analysis of a heavy civil/transportation project. This paper explains how the CM’s QA/QC obligations are derived from both contractual requirements, as well as from industry performance standards. It also demonstrates how to evaluate a CM’s QA/QC performance based on the concept of “PDCA” (plan, do, check, and assess), on which the TCM process model is based. The case study reveals that the role of the CM in construction quality does not end with simply defining an effective QA/QC strategy in the project management plan (PMP). The CM must provide a complete plan that must be fully implemented, evaluated for effectiveness, and adjusted on a continual basis to assure project quality. (CDR-966) Creating Mid-Period Schedules in Window Analysis Using Primavera Version 6
Primary Author: Mr Patrick M Kelly PSP ARCADIS-US
Audience Focus: Intermediate
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: SUN 4:30-5:30/Salon B
Abstract: Windows analysis is one of the more effective and widely accepted methods of conducting forensic schedule analysis. Creation of a mid-period, or progress-only, schedule is essential to effective Windows analysis, in that it separates the effects of progress on the critical path from the effects of revisions to the network, thereby isolating causes of delay from efforts meant to mitigate those delays. AACE’s Recommended Practice for Forensic Schedule Analysis outlines methods for creating mid-period schedules; however, Primavera Version 6 has introduced a wide variety of new functions which, while beneficial to project managers during construction, may cause problems with the creation of mid-period schedules during delay analysis. As a result, there is a risk that the advanced global features of enterprise scheduling software, like P6, can introduce errors into the created schedules. In addition to making recommendations for best practices in creating mid-period schedules, this paper will examine the risks and potential sources of error, through case studies, and make recommendations for tracking, mitigating, or eliminating risks associated with the creation of mid-period schedules. (CDR-974) When an Owner's Hard-Line Claims Negotiations are Also a Breach of Contract
Primary Author: Mr Christopher J Brasco Esq Watt Tieder Hoffar & Fitzgerald
Co-author(s): Mr Adam M Tuckman Watt Tieder Hoffar & Fitzgerald LLP; Mr Thomas F Peters PE CFCC Navigant Consulting, Inc.
Audience Focus: Intermediate
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: SUN 2:45-3:45/Salon B
Abstract: This paper will explore the boundaries separating an owner’s negotiation posture from a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The reader will gain a fuller understanding of the owner’s responsibilities in the changes process so that they can more effectively administer the contract change order process. In particular, this paper will focus on the evolving legal requirements defining the owner’s duty of good faith and fair dealing when handling contract changes. It will also inform the reader of the implication of a public owner’s actions in its varying capacities ranging from public representative to contracting party. Thereafter, the authors’ will present possible consequences of an owner’s breach of his or her duty of good faith and fair dealing. The presentation of this topic will relate practical experiences with the administration of contract changes, how the process can be best administered in the interest of all concerned, and the negative consequences of a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. (CDR-978) Evaluating Cost Escalation Using Cost-loaded Schedules
Primary Author: Mr. Sagar B. Khadka CCE PSP McDonough Bolyard Peck, Inc
Co-author(s): Mr Christopher J Payne PE CFCC PSP McDonough Bolyard Peck, Inc
Audience Focus: Intermediate
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: TUE 8:00-9:00/Salon C
Abstract: Predicting costs of labor, equipment and materials is an intrinsic challenge in construction contracting. The cost of materials for long-term capital construction projects can be unpredictable and swing in either direction during the project performance period. For instance, the construction industry encountered a steep up and down variation in the price of steel during the last decade, creating a highly volatile market environment. When a time extension is awarded to a contractor because of an owner-caused delay, the inclination on the contractor’s part might be to expect a materials cost escalation payment for the difference between the bid price and the materials price at the time of purchase. However, that simplistic approach may not reflect all aspects of the cost increase, including the contractor’s risk of escalation absent owner delay, the anticipated time of material purchases, and actual material procurement during the project. This presentation will share how such cost escalation claims were evaluated for a large capital construction project, spanning seven years, using the combination of cost-loaded schedules and the relevant materials price analysis. (CDR-980) Proving Engineering Productivity Loss
Primary Author: Dr. Tong Zhao PE PSP Delta Consulting Group, Inc
Co-author(s): Mr John Mark Dungan Delta Consulting Group, Inc
Audience Focus: Basic
Application Type: Experience-Based
Time/Location: WED 11:00-12:00/Salon C
Abstract: The measured mile/baseline method has been widely accepted to quantify labor productivity loss, but it has not been successfully used in engineering productivity because of the challenges in engineering productivity measurement and the determination of productivity benchmark. This paper presents a series of procedures based on the measured mile/baseline method to quantify engineering productivity loss from a project specific perspective. A case study on the piping discipline in a large scale process plant project is used to illustrate the calculation. The paper also includes a proposed approach, the two mile method, to quantify engineering productivity loss using data for similar work, but different complexity.
