Construction CPM Conference
Navigant’s Jim Zack and John Livengood to present insights on construction schedules and analysis during the Construction CPM Conference on January 31 – February 5, 2016 in New Orleans, LA.
Ghost Schedules Benefits and Pitfalls
Monday, February 1
It’s not uncommon for those preparing for, or defending against a construction delay claim, to discover that the project actually has multiple schedules. One set of schedules is inevitably the baseline or as-planned schedule that the contractor submitted along with the update submittals. However, the second and sometimes even third, set of schedules uncovered and previously unknown to other project participants are often referred to as Ghost Schedules.
Retrospective TIAs – Time to Lay Them to Rest?
Tuesday, February 2
The power of Time Impact Analysis (TIA) methodology is attested to by its near universal adoption as a preferred method for establishing entitlement to time extensions during the course of a project using CPM scheduling. AACE’s RP 52R-06 (2006), which provides a detailed explanation of how-to properly perform this prospective analysis, is further example of Prospective TIA’s importance. Yet, at the same time the Retrospective TIAs continues to pose significant methodological issues even though it remains a major methodology for determining the delays in a CPM schedule, as reflected in AACE’s RP29R-03 (2011). Questions concerning Retrospective TIA’s accuracy abound as originally reflected in the question I posed in my 2008 AACE presentation on the matter: “Retrospective TIAs – Time to Lay Them to Rest?” After nearly five decades of use this article presents a case as to why TIA’s are still amongst the best and worst forensic delay methodologies. It poses the question if their Retrospective use should be sharply restricted due to its defects and alternatives available to the expert analyst.
Sheraton Canal Street, New Orleans, LA