You are on page 1of 10


Forensic Schedule Analysis

and Discretionary Logic
John C. Livengood Esq., CCP CFCC PSP FAACE

Because every project is different

Abstract: Forensic Schedule Analysis (FSA) and real time schedule reviews and each have different, even if just
do not handle CPM schedules with significant amounts of discretionary logic
slightly different, analysis needs and
very well. In the last decade, major theoretical and practical advancements
have been made of which FSA methodology is most appropriate to evaluate underlying facts, it could be argued
schedule delay, largely through the introduction of AACE Internationals Rec- that every forensic schedule analysis
ommended Practice 29R-03, Forensic Schedule Analysis. Nevertheless, dis- performed is a different methodology.
cretionary logic, the type of logic that is not dictated by either the contract Since each separate analysis can, at
or the construction necessity of the project, continues to cause difficulty in the most granular level of detail, be
creating fair and accurate analyses of schedules during the course of the distinguished from any other
project. Further, these analytical problems persist in the methodologies as- methodology, many analysts have
sociated with post-construction FSA. This article considers several applica- insisted that their particular
tions and refinements of existing forensic delay methodologies, particularly methodology used is different or
As-Planned vs. As-Built, which can assist in identifying the as-built critical distinguishable from other
path and delay responsibility in projects with significant amounts of discre-
methodologies. Often, these schedule
tionary logic.
analysts assert their methodology is
the best or most accurate method

he underlying premise of all However, CPM practitioners available [16]. Despite these nuances,
Forensics Schedule Analysis recognize that the different groups of there are many common
(FSA) methodologies is the logic relationships: contractual, characteristics that assist in identifying
comparison between what mandatory, and discretionary logic, the four core methodological families
was planned and what actually hap- interact with the forensic analysis [4].
pened, and from that analysis an expla- methods in different ways. One of Within each of the four major
nation of the causation for the these logic groups (discretionary) methodology groups, there are several
difference. As a result of the delay and creates special analytical issues within if not dozens of variations that can be
causation analysis, damages can be cal- the context of forensic schedule performed that might be considered
culated. This underlying concept works analysis. separate methodologies, but in fact,
well in most situations because most have much in common. In the sections
construction projects have relatively lim- Four Major FSA below, these major families of
ited sequences or methods that could Methodology Families methodologies will be discussed and
be used in construction. For example, in AACE identifies nine methodologies the various sub-methodologies will be
a typical building, the excavation must [1] though arguments have been made identified and discussed only as
precede the foundation, and the erec- for more types [2], as well as fewer [3]. relevant.
tion of the steel frame must precede the This article refers to four major types
installation of exterior cladding. In such of forensic schedule delay As-Planned vs. As-Built [1]
projects, the required sequence of ma- methodologies. All known schedule
terial installation is driven by the project delay methodologies fit into these This methodology compares an
itself and the laws of physics. broad groupings. initial planned schedule with the


as-built schedule or as-built data. The As-Planned vs. As-Built methodologies. As with the As-
This methodology can be methodology remains quite Planned vs. As-Built, the accuracy
performed in great detail or at a common despite the existence of of the original baseline is
very summary level. It also can be other methodologies that are less essential.
performed with relatively little dependent on expert By comparing the status of the
construction phase data. If interpretation. This is because the project at the beginning of the
adequate data is available, it can method is easily understandable time period with the project
be a very effective and accurate and can be performed with status at the end of the time
portrayal of delay events on a relatively little data. Its accuracy period, a period-by-period
project. It is often the fall-back improves as more information on calculation of delays and impacts
methodology used by schedule actual events is included. It also can be generated. Since the
analysts when other remains common because it can method uses schedules
methodologies are inappropriate, be performed even when some of developed during the project, it is
or as a quality check to make the underlying data, particularly often perceived as being the best
more understandable one of the accurate schedule updates, is representation of how the project
more complicated forensic unavailable. constructors understood the
schedule methodologies. It scope and timing of the work and
requires no active computer Contemporaneous Period Analysis [1] how they planned to perform
calculation and relies on the future work. Analysis using this
schedules original logic. However, This methodology relies on method is often assisted by the
if based on CPM schedules, the schedules prepared during the native format schedules, but the
logic of the baseline and the course of the project. It is often method itself does not require
accuracy of the as-built must be known as windows analysis. The changes to the schedule or other
verified. Contemporary Period Analysis network manipulation.
The As-Planned vs. As-Built (CPA) method generally identifies This methodology is generally
(APAB) is the oldest of the delays within specific time considered one of the most
schedule delay methodologies, periods or windows of time [7]. reliable since the analysis is
predating CPM by decades [5]. It This comparison is accomplished performed on CPM schedules that
compares the original schedule by comparing the schedule at the were developed, used, and
with the actual completed start of a time period with its modified during the life of the
performance and measures status at the end of the time project. At the same time, if the
delays to activities between the period. The methodology uses schedule updates were not
two. This is one of the more easily the project schedule updates to maintained on a regular basis and
understood methodologies and quantify the loss or gain of time are inaccurate or non-existent,
one of the more common. It is along a logic path that was or they cannot form a basis for a
suitable for projects that lack became critical, and identifies the forensic schedule analysis. The
detailed schedule data and it can activities responsible for the accuracy of these schedule
be performed at a detailed or critical delay or gain. This method updates is often the first question
summary level. The methodology relies on the forward-looking the analyst must determine when
can be broken into time slices, but calculations made at the time the deciding if this FSA methodology
such a division may not improve updates were prepared. Further, is the correct one for the
its accuracy. In its most elaborate it does not involve the insertion assignment. The second, and
and detailed application, it can or deletion of delays, but instead often equally important, decision
evaluate delays on a daily basis analyses the behavior of the for the analyst is to determine the
using contemporaneous records network from update to update time-periods for use in the
and assist in allocating and measures schedule variances analysis. By combining time
responsibility for each day of based on schedule logic, prepared windows, the analyst reduces the
delay. Its most significant draw- contemporaneously with the amount of work and potentially
back is that it generally does not project execution. This is in the cost of the analysis, but at the
allow for the analyst to take into opposition to the schedule price of less detail. Further,
account what the parties were developed at the project outset, combining time periods can
considering during the course of as with the As-Planned vs. As- create concurrency or hide
the project, and thereby includes Built methodology or important events, including
no consideration of the reconstructed after-the-fact logic delays and subsequent
contemporaneous understanding as used in Time Impact Analysis accelerations. Nevertheless, this
of delay [6]. (TIA) and Collapsed As-Built (CAB) methodology, regardless of the


name used, is one of the most previously included in the CPM functional manner. Further, the
accurate of all the forensic delay schedule. The fragnets, CAB can isolate and segregate
methodologies available. developed by the expert to reflect owner and/or contractor-caused
changed events on the project, delays if there is sufficient detail
Time Impact Analysis [1] add or subtract the events in the as-built schedule. The
through inclusion (or deletion) of concept of deleting delay
Time Impact Analyses (TIA) are activities, revision of logic, and activities to show the impact is
important and an incredibly changes in activity. The easy to understand and present,
useful tool for schedule analysis. comparison of the predicted but difficult to support factually in
Contractors would be hard- completion dates of these two a legal setting [17]. Because of its
pressed to identify and quantify schedules (before and after the reliance on an accurate detailed
potential schedule impacts fragnet insertion) determines the as-built, it is closely tied to the
without the prospective TIA quantum of delay reflected by the history of actual events on the
methodology, the methodology fragnet. project. Finally, it is the only
for which the TIA was originally However, Retrospective TIAs have methodology that can be
developed [8]. Similarly, the the following problems and implemented without any
Retrospective TIA is widely used should therefore be carefully baseline schedule or
and is recognized by courts and considered and reviewed: (1) TIAs contemporaneous schedule
commentators because of its may appear to be scientific and updates.
rigorous methodology and its computer driven; however, they The CAB, also known as the but-
close relationship to the are subject to the similar vagaries for analysis, takes the project as
chronological sequence of events of expert opinion as any other it was actually built and subtracts
on the project [9]. Further, it has methodology; (2) TIAs seemingly impacts to show what would have
also been said that a forensic TIA scientific method may obscure happened if those impacts had
is better able to identify the the analysts manipulation of the not occurred. The collapsed as-
quantum of an alleged critical path through the built methodology has three basic
acceleration claim by comparing development and use of a fragnet steps. First, the expert takes the
the actual performance with what or fragnets; (3) TIAs require a as-built schedule of a completed
would have happened without detailed and fully functional project and identifies the likely
the acceleration. The accuracy of baseline schedule and set of logical relationships between the
the original baseline, as well as updates to work properly, which activities and events, based on
the contemporaneous updates is is a requirement that is often either the CPM schedules
essential. Like the Contemporary impossible; (4) Modifications to developed for the project or
Period Analysis, this methodology the baseline schedule and based on the experts experience
cannot be adequately performed updates that are needed to and knowledge. Second, the
if the underlying data is defective. permit TIA analysis can be so expert removes those delay or
This methodology requires active significant as to make the impact activities from the CPM
use of CPM software. Schedules underlying schedules irrelevant to schedule. Third, the expert
developed during the course of the plans of the contractor; and recalculates the CPM schedule, to
the project are modified through (5) The critical path generated is show what would have happened,
the addition of new or expanded always a projection and may not but-for the delay/impact
activities as part of the analysis to accurately reflect the actual events. This methodology is
reflect delays and impacts, and events on the project [10]. Since sometimes criticized because the
the resulting changes in the this methodology projects future analyst creates the schedule logic
schedule are observed. A TIA events, some of perceived as part the analysis. While such
methodology compares two CPM inaccuracy can simply reflect that creation might be based on
schedules with similar data: one the future events and impacts contemporaneous CPM
reflecting the schedule at the have not yet been realized. schedules, the methodology is
start of an analysis period (such as often used when no CPM
the beginning of a month or Collapsed As-Built [1] schedules existed during the
immediately prior to an impact), course of the project. Therefore, a
and the other with an identical The Collapsed As-Built (CAB) CPM schedule is created based on
CPM schedule, EXCEPT for the methodology is one of the the actual events, and at best, the
inclusion of one or more conceptually easiest to experts knowledge or at worst,
fragnets, which reflect an actual understand and hardest to guesswork.
or anticipated event not implement in a reasonable and


Three Logic Groups top down), most construction AACE has several definitions of this
CPM schedules typically have schedules are developed around the type of logic. Desirable logic:
three basic types of logic that the contractual and mandatory logic
schedule creator can use in requirements. AACE offers the Network logic that is desirable
sequencing activities as the CPM is following definition for this type of for the contractor (but not
developed. They are: relationship: [A] dependency inherent necessarily for the client), based
in the nature of the work being done, on some preference or advantage.
Contractual Logic such as a physical limitation. Used in Desirable logic may impose
This logic is derived from the hard logic [11]. unnecessary conditions that
contract itself and is usually identified AACE also offers definitions of preclude an optimum solution
by the owner. It may mandate one Irrefutable Logic: Network logic that [11].
section of the building being is rational and compelling and cannot
completed first or some other be disputed on the basis of reason, [6] This is pretty close to the type of
milestone being accomplished prior to that capture most of the meaning of logic at issue here, but is reversed.
other work being undertaken. For this logic relationship. So, a more Usually the preference will be to gain
example, a school project may comprehensive definition of this type some advantage, even if there is
mandate that the classrooms be of logic is: Logic required by the another way to perform the work.
opened by the start of school in physical necessity of the materials and AACE also proposes for a discretionary
September, but allow the gymnasium design. This definition separates the logic connection two variations:
facilities to lag until the start of winter. contractual mandates discussed
Such logic relationships are previously and makes the logic Dependency defined by
necessitated by the operational needs connection driven solely by the preference, rather than necessity.
of the owner. This is sometimes constraints of the construction [18]. These are typically employed in
considered a type of mandatory or preferential or soft logic [11].
hard logic. AACE defines this type of Discretionary Logic (also known as
logic as: Clearly understood work Preferential or Soft Logic) Preferential Logic: contractor's
scope allows one to define work This logic is the primary focus of approach to sequencing work
activities and logic with precision. The this article. It is the logic that is over and above those sequences
opposite of soft logic [11]. But, this developed when, for the particular job indicated in or required by
definition fails to distinguish between in question, there is no contractual or contract documents. Examples
logic that is required by the laws of physical necessity to perform the work include equipment restraints,
man (contract) or the laws of physics. in a certain order. At the same time, crew movements, form reuse,
So, an alternate definition of this type discretionary logic recognizes that special logic (lead/lag) restraints,
of logic is: Logic required by the there are often valid reasons for etc., factored into the progress
contract and/or scope of work that performing the work in a certain order. schedule instead of disclosing the
mandates certain of the owners For example, if the contractor is associated float times [11].
sequence and timing requirements. erecting the partitions and sheetrock
This logic may be related to the on the fifth floor of a building under These three groupings of logic
physics of the construction. For construction, there is probably no appear in virtually all schedules, but
example, a date is specified for when contractual or mandatory logic for usually have little impact on forensic
the steel must be topped out on a high erecting it from south to north rather delay analysis, because most out-of-
rise, but may be more associated with than north to south. But there may be sequence work does not impact the
some external objective, such as good reasons to perform the work in a critical path because of the impact of
wanting to be the first building on the particular way. For example, if the float. Recall that forensic analysis
block over ten stories. material lift is on the north side of the looks at, late dates, while real
building, then a contractors decision projects try to work off of early dates.
Mandatory Logic (also known as to build the partitions and sheetrock Nevertheless, each of the delay
Hard Logic) from the south (so he doesnt have to methodologies is impacted by the
This logic relationship is common carry the materials past already degree of discretionary logic.
on projects. This is the logic that constructed partitions) makes logical
requires the excavation to precede the sense. Yet, he could perform the work Out-of-Sequence Work
footings, followed by the foundation, starting at the material lift and Out-of-sequence work can occur
followed by the structure, and so on. working away from it. The regardless of the logic group involved
While it is occasionally possible to disadvantage is probably a minor loss with the activity. For example, the
cheat the requirements of physics of productivity since the workers have contractor may install the footings and
(construction the building from the to exercise special care moving the foundations and then come back and
materials past already erected work.


excavate for utility access afterwards, out-of-sequence events typically have Forensically, out-of sequence
despite the mandatory logic of no effect on the accuracy of the installation of the bents can create
installing the underground utilities forensic analysis. significant analytical problems for
prior to the foundation or footings. The second type of out-of- some forensic delay methodologies.
Also, the contract may require that the sequence works occurs when early It is this third out-of-sequence
permanent power be installed prior to delays make a work-around of an scenario that will be discussed going
the emergency generator installation, otherwise mandatory logic tie forward in this article to demonstrate
but the contractor may decide that essential. The earlier example of the how each of the four major
because of delays to the permanent out-of-sequence installation of methodologies copes with this
power caused by the utility, it is temporary power prior to the discretionary logic.
essential to have the generators availability of permanent power is also
operational much earlier, so as to an example of a typical construction Role of
support the construction. Such out-of- situation. In this case, delays caused Contemporaneous Updates
sequence work does occur, but by the utility in providing permanent Since out-of-sequence work is a
frequently has little impact on the power make a potential delay to common occurrence in projects, best
critical path because of either float commissioning and testing likely. The practices associated with active
issues, or the de minimis nature of the contractors decision to install project scheduling has
out-of-sequence events. The most emergency generators early not only recommendations about how it
common type of out-of-sequence allows the commissioning and testing should be considered. Two
work occurs in the following three to proceed (at least for some limited approaches predominate [12].
situations. extent), but can also assist in timelier The preferred approach is that as
First, the CPM schedule depicts a project completion. Forensically, this out-of sequence work occurs on a
mandatory logic relationship, typically type of out-of sequence work is project, the next months update
a finish-to-start, but the schedules important as there likely will be delays should reflect new logic dictated by
CPM logic does not fully reflect the to commissioning and testing this difference from the planned.
true nature of the sequence of work. completion regardless of the out-of- Generally, this approach works well for
This usually occurs when the sequence work because final testing adjusting out-of-sequence work and is
successor activity subject to a contractually needs permanent associated with minor issues of
mandatory logic connection starts power. All forensic methodologies are starting the successor early. Primavera
before the predecessor finishes. This is well equipped to recognize and P6 calculation setting retained logic
quite common. For example, the CPM account for such out-of sequence is the usual setting for this situation.
calls for completion of partition installation. This policy is more problematic in the
erection and gypsum board finishing The third and most complicated cases where there is significant
prior to the start of painting. This is type of out-of-sequence work is where discretionary logic and the actual
logical because you cannot paint until items that were largely repetitive and sequence is substantially different
the gypsum board is sanded smooth. have no need for immediate than that planned. Such out-of-
Yet, painting often starts prior to construction successors, are installed sequence work could result in month-
gypsum board completion because in a sequence other than as planned. to-month schedules not just evolving,
the painting can occur in an area of While this can occur on many types of but becoming a continual re-
work that is complete, even if there projects, the most common baselining that involves significant
are incomplete areas of the gypsum occurrence is linear projects, such as remodeling of the schedules logic.
board finishing elsewhere. This is a roads or pipelines. For example, The alternate position, which is less
typical characteristic reflecting a suppose the contractor is building a widely advocated, holds that the
schedulers short-cut in the logic bridge that has bents, each of which original baseline schedule should not
sequence. However, correcting such includes multiple piles and pile caps. be continually adjusted and that the
short-cuts may make a CPM The project cannot be completed until Primavera P6 setting of progress
schedule substantially larger and more all the bents are complete and the override should only be used in
cumbersome, hence less likely to be of successor precast beams and concrete situations of out-of-sequence work.
use in managing the project. Further, deck between the bents is installed. Again, this position will have relatively
construction professionals all But the order the bents are completed little impact on most forensic analysis
understand this type CPM logic short- in is irrelevant. There are no when out-of-sequence work is
hand. Forensically, this type of mandatory logic restraints as between associated with minor issues of
occurrence is seldom of any the bents, but within the bents the starting the successor early. This policy
importance. Such early starts are sequence must be: piles, pile caps, creates calculation irregularities when
recognized forensically as a potential precast beams, and precast decking. there is wholesale disregard for the
shift in the critical path. Regardless of Deck finishing can only be performed planned logic [19].
the methodology used, these types of after all the bents are completed.


Choosing the Right Methodology Nevertheless, as described in the production would appear as potential
As a general rule, the 11 different paragraphs below, when significant delays that could be excluded as part
items that should be considered in discretionary logic is involved, there is of the analysis.
choosing the right delay methodology, another overlay of technical capability
as published by AACE, remain in place. that needs to be considered [15]. Time Impact Analysis
These items are described in detail in Out-of-sequence work has
section five of AACEs RP29R-03, and Methodologies and minimal impact on this methodology
will in most cases serve the analyst Out-of-Sequence Work since it relies on inserting fragnet
well. They are: The discussion of the four major changes related to potential delay into
methodological groups does not the schedule and recalculating. Note
1. Contractual Requirements follow the typical sequence as that out-of-sequence performance will
2. Purpose of Analysis presented earlier in this article and in manifest itself as part of the as-built
3. Source Data Availability and AACEs RP29R-03. In the paragraphs condition and thus should not impact
Reliability below, the sequence is determined by the delay portion. However, if the
4. Size of the Dispute the least impacted out-of-sequence claimed delay is the result of out-of-
5. Complexity of the Dispute first and the most impacted last. sequence work, then discretionary
6. Budget for Forensic Schedule logic will have a role in the TIA.
Analysis Collapsed As-Built Generally, the work sequence will in
7. Time Allowed for Forensic Out-of-sequence work has no essence self-correct during the course
Schedule Analysis impact on the analysis using this of an analysis.
8. Expertise of the Forensic methodology. Because this Contemporaneous Period Analysis
Schedule Analyst and methodology relies on an after-the- Out-of-sequence work has only
Resources Available fact backward review of the actual minimal impact on this methodology.
9. Forum for Resolution and project activities and compares that CPA relies on comparing the pre-
Audience actual sequence to a sequence impact schedule with the post-impact
10. Legal or Procedural excluding perceived delays, the schedule, so out-of-sequence work
Requirements change in sequence of activities will be absorbed into the as-built
11. Custom and Usage of during the course of the project has no nature of the second schedule. Again,
Methods on the Project or special impact on the results. If out-of- as with the TIA, if the out-of-sequence
the Case sequence work affects the production work is itself the claimed impact, then
rate of the work, then such a change in it could evidence itself in the analysis.

Figure 1 Traditional APAB/DDM


It is important to realize that both the against the planned amount of time activities originally on the projects as-
TIA and the CPA rely on schedules that expended. For example, assume the planned critical path.
are updated. Therefore, it is essential planned activity was 10 calendar days
that out-of sequence work, when it long and its late planned start date Traditional Daily Delay Measure
occurs, be integrated into revised logic was 01-April, and the actual start date Traditional APAB/DDM procedures
in the next update. As with a TIA, the was 01-May. On that date, the activity will not provide an accurate evaluation
work sequence will in essence self- would show it delayed 30 calendar of delays when there is substantial-
correct during the course of an days. Upon its completion on 20-May, out-of-sequence work. This is evident
analysis. the DDM would show the activity 40 in that comparing an event that was
calendar days late. Since the activity supposed to be performed first with its
As-Planned As-Built lost a half day for every day of actual timing could show great
The biggest impact on FSA results, progress (10/20), the activity would variation from activities that were
if there is substantial discretionary have been 35 calendar days late on 10- significantly ahead of schedule to
logic and resultant out-of-sequence May. By making this calculation for those that were significantly behind
work, is associated with the As- every day for every activity, a detailed schedule. Such an outcome would not
Planned vs. As-Built (APAB) picture of the projects delay can be provide the analyst with an accurate
methodology. Because the starting assembled. The analysis can be done picture of the overall delay trend of
point of this methodology is the as- at any frequency identified by the the project. Figure 1 shows this
planned schedule, significant logic analyst: daily, weekly, and monthly are unrealistic result of the Traditional
variations from that plan create all useful depending on the level of DDM by plotting the cumulative delay
correspondingly significant detail required. The DDM calculates in the vertical axis and the date of that
potentialities for delay and errors in the status of individual activities by delay on the horizontal axis, using the
forensically calculating its impact. It is, positive and negative numbers DDM procedure. For comparison, the
of course, recognized that this is one indicating days of delay. By doing this Adjusted Traditional DDM is shown
of the principle reasons that many FSA for each activity and comparing them that simply reflects normalization of
experts believe that the APAB side by side, it provides a detailed look the excessive variation. Not
methodology is a poor choice for delay at potential critical path activities, surprisingly, this shows that there is
analysis [5]. It is axiomatic that the because the analyst can tell at a glance wild variation in the cumulative delay
larger the project, the more which activities are the most delayed as out-of-sequence activities are
complicated the project, and the compared to their late dates. This compared to the original baseline.
longer the project is in production, the technique automatically accounts for Even as the overall trend shows more
less likely the ABAB will result in float differences by using the late than 100 calendar days of cumulative
reasonable or accurate analysis results dates. It does not identify the as-built delay, this graphic representation
[1]. critical path [14]. shows that the work may be ahead of
Nevertheless, APAB remains one While the comparison can be schedule.
of the most commonly used FSA made between the early and actual
methods [13]. Further, it can be dates when the late dates are Production Based Daily Delay Measure
argued that in cases with massive unreliable, it is better to compare late There are at least two variations
discretionary logic and associated out- dates with actual dates [20]. Any delay of the APAB/DDM technique that
of-sequence work, methodologies like indicated by the comparison using late address this problem. Both were first
TIA and CPA, which relay on accurate dates is a true delay rather than identified and used in an entirely
contemporaneous updates, are not consumption of float. As a result of different context when first described
appropriate to perform delay analysis. that exercise, any float associated with in 2003 [14]. The DDM methodology,
the duration of a schedule activity is described in AACE Internationals
Using a Daily Delay excluded. Activities that have float RP29R-03, largely conforms to the
Measure to Assist [14] (and accordingly are not on the as- traditional technique proposed in
The Daily Delay Measure (DDM) is planned critical path) will generally 2003. As such, it is a powerful tool for
an enhanced procedure within the not appear to have been delayed helping to identify candidates for a
APAB methodology identified in during the early stages of analysis projects critical path and when that
RP29R-03 [1]. It compares the planned since they will appear to be ahead of path may shift from one delayed
late start and finish dates progress schedule because of their float. As the sequence to another.
with the actual start and finish dates analysis progresses through a projects As used in evaluating out-of-
on a periodic basis. Generally, this performance however, the activities sequence performance, it can be
analysis technique uses a that initially had float, if they were adapted to compare the planned rate
mathematical formula to compare the delayed for duration in excess of the of installation of similar elements to
amount of actual time expended value of that float, can become critical, the actual rate of those same
thus overtaking one or more of those elements. In the example of the


Figure 2 Traditional APAB/Production Based DDM

installation of repetitive bridge when it occurred and the time-related measure. The difference is that it is
elements (piles, pile caps, and piers), impact. predicated on time differential from
the method compares the date of the the as-planned to the as-built, so it
first planned element to the actual Cost Based Daily Delay Measure actually measures delay.
date of the first planned element, the A cost based APAB/DDM is a It is important to accommodate
second actual unit dates to the second second variation of the procedure two potential issues in this cost based
planned dates, and so on. This process that can yield accurate results by DDM analysis. Large equipment
is repeated for each type of element. identifying the amount of delay purchases or installations can
It is important that the units are incrementally when it actually seriously alter the cost model for both
essentially the same. It works well for occurred. This technique requires the the planned and actual dates. In
comparing pier installation or units of schedule to be cost loaded. If not performing this type of analysis, it is
distance on a roadway project. Such a already cost loaded, the analyst could recommended that such large
comparison therefore eliminates the manually cost load the major activities material or equipment purchases be
penalty for out-of-sequence work groups and create a reasonable eliminated from the calculation. A
because it pretends that the planned representation of a true cost loaded second adjustment should be made
sequence was the same as the actual schedule. Assuming planned schedule for change orders. The value of the
sequence, just delayed because of is cost loaded, either through original change order needs to be added into
poor production; or other factors such cost loading or an expert the proper place in both the planned
as late design, weather, or delayed approximation, a table can be created schedule and actual schedule.
approvals. Figure 2 depicts this that shows the anticipated earnings Figure 3 shows this Cost-Based
Production Based DDM in comparison (not billings, since they will likely DDM in comparison with Production-
to the Adjusted Traditional DDM. It reflect withheld retainage). Using that Based DDM and the Adjusted
shows that the overall delay to the same cost values tied to the actual Traditional DDM. The similarity of the
project is the same, but the delay is dates for the appropriate activities, a two cumulative delay curves
measured incrementally as it actually comparison can be made with the generated by the alternative DDM
occurs. This is important if the causes actual earnings. Traditionally, this is techniques can give the analyst
of the delay are being analyzed. It may shown in an S-curve; however, using confidence that the overall depiction
be that during the production there the planned and actual dates of the of the delay is accurate. At the same
was some detail change that impacted earnings, a schedule delay time, the differences warrant a
production rates. If so, the comparison is possible. This method detailed review to ascertain the
incremental approach would show of course is similar to an earned-value causes. In Figure 3, the analyst


Figure 3 Cost Based/Traditional/Production DDM

identified the principle reason for the the As-Planned to As-Built 4. P. Kelly and W. Franczek. Fall,
divergence between the two lines is methodology, if used in conjunction 2013, Clearing the Smoke:
related to valuation differenced with the enhancement of the DDM Forensic Schedule Analysis
caused by the length (and therefore technique, can provide accurate Method Selection for
cost) of some of the deck/precast incremental delay data where other Construction Attorneys. The
elements. methodologies may fail. Construction Lawyer, p.30.
The APAB/DDM methodology, 5. S. Dale and R. DOnofrio.
Conclusion when used with either a production Construction Schedule Delays,
In choosing a forensic delay based adjustment or a cost based West Thompson Reuters, 2014,
methodology, the analyst should adjustment, can provide an accurate Pages 598 and 471.
follow the 11 criteria identified in identification of when and by how 6. P. Kelly and J. Livengood.
AACE Recommended Practice 29R-03, much the project was delayed, thus Forensic Schedule Analysis
Forensic Schedule Analysis [15]. facilitating identification of the causes Methods: Reconciliation of
However, when significant of that delay and eventual damage Different Results. Transactions
discretionary logic in a schedule has calculations based on that data. 2014, AACE International,
resulted in significant out-of-sequence Morgantown, WV.
work, there is an additional overlay of REFERENCES 7. L. Schumacher. Quantifying
method selection to consider. 1. K. Hoshino, C. Carson, and J. Delays on Construction Projects.
Of the four basic methodology Livengood, 2011. AACE Seattle Daily J. of Commerce,
groupings, which AACE has divided International Recommended Dec. 24, 1991; and L.
into nine distinct forensic schedule Practice RP 29R-03, Forensic Schumacher. Apportioning Delay
analysis methodologies, three of the Schedule Analysis, Section 3, on Construction Projects. Seattle
four can probably be used without AACE International, Morgantown, Daily J. of Commerce, Dec. 25-26,
modification. However, each of these WV. 29R-03 (2011). 1991.
methodologies has well known 2. S. Dale and R. DOnofrio. 8. T. Calvey and R. Winter. AACE
shortcomings, whether it is minimal Reconciling Concurrency in International Recommended
acceptance in courts of law in the U.S. Schedule Delay and Construction Practice RP 52R-06, Time Impact
(Collapsed As-Built), or the need for Acceleration. (2010) 39 Public Analysis As Applied in
accurate baseline and schedule Cont. L.J. 161. Construction, 2006, AACE
update information, which is often 3. B. Bramble and M. Callahan. International, Morgantown, WV.
unavailable (Contemporary Period Construction Delay Claims, (3d 9. J. Wickwire, T. Driscoll, R. Hurlbut,
Analysis and Time Impact Analysis). ed.), Aspen 2000. and R. Hillman. Construction
The fourth major methodology group, Scheduling: Preparation, Liability


and Claims, 3rd edition, 2010, insufficiently distinct from other the contractors ability to manage
8.13, Aspen Publishers: P. Bruner methodologies to be the schedule are ultimately self-
and J. OConnor. Bruner & independently identified they defeating for the owner
OConnor Construction Law, Vol. were considered to be a subset of 20. The reporting of actual finish
2, Section 15:120-136, West nine that were identified. dates is an issue of significance in
Thompson Reuters, New York. 17. The difficulty in finding factual forensic schedule analysis.
(2007). support for the collapsed as-built Because activities soften linger
10. J. Livengood. Retrospective TIAs methodology has two root for a long time after they are
Time to Lay Them to Rest AACE causes. First, the methodology is effectively complete, it is
International Transactions, 2007. often used when there is no important to know if the
11. AACE Definitions, AACE effective baseline schedule to reporting convention is 100
International Recommended show how the contractor percent complete or effectively
Practice No 10S-90, Cost reasonably planned to perform complete, which may be 90
Engineering Terminology, AACE the work. Second, as discussed in percent or 95 percent.
International, Morgantown, WV, the paper, the experts
2014. development and control of the ABOUT THE AUTHOR
12. GAO Schedule Assessment Guide. after-the-fact schedule logic
(May, 2012) (GAO 12 12OG). make it subject to criticism of it
13. N. Braimah. An Investigation into being only weakly related to the
the Use of Construction Delay and events in the field, and at the John C. Livengood
Disruption Analysis extreme, contrived. Esq., CCP CFCC PSP
Methodologies. Doctoral Thesis, 18. The issue of logic controlled by FAACE, is with
University of Wolverhampton, resource restraint could be Navigant. He can
UK, August 2008. Page 140. considered as either a mandatory be contacted by
14. J. Livengood. Daily Delay restrain or as a discretionary sending e-mail to:
Measure A New Technique to restraint. Depending on where
Precisely Measure Delay. AACE and when the work is being
Transactions, 2003. See also R. performed, the lack of equipment
Seals. Continuous Delay and materials may be just as real FOR OTHER RESOURCES
Measurement and the Role of as gravity in controlling the To view additional resources on
Daily Delay Values Fully sequence of construction. For this subject, go to:
Explained. AACE Transactions, discussion in this paper, it has
2004. been considered controlled by Do an advanced search by au-
15. K. Hoshino, C. Carson, and J. discretionary logic. thor name for an abstract listing of
all other technical articles this author
Livengood. 2011, AACE 19. The situation where the contract
has published with AACE. Or, search
International Recommended forbids or sharply curtains logic by any total cost management subject
Practice RP 29R-03 Forensic revisions in updates is not area and retrieve a listing of all avail-
Schedule Analysis, Section 5, addressed by the discussions in able AACE articles on your area of in-
AACE International, Morgantown, this paper. In such cases, the terest. AACE also oers pre-recorded
WV. contractor has a more webinars, an Online Learning Center
16. It is instructive that many of the complicated problem because and other educational resources.
experts who object to The the owner has drastically reduced Check out all of the available AACE re-
Recommended Practice on the contractors risk-mitigation sources.
Forensic Schedule Analysis options. Since the schedule is
(RP29R-03) have their own pet developed and maintained by the
methodologies that were contractor, provisions that restrict