By: Long International, Inc. - Andrew Avalon, P.E., PSP and Ronald J. Rider, MBA
Tel: (303) 972-2443
Email:Mr. Avalon
The Collapsed As-Built Windows Schedule Analysis (AACE® International Recommended Practice 29R-03, Method Implementation Protocol 3.9) is a modeled, subtractive, multiple-base method. It is a retrospective CPM schedule analysis which is typically used to prove entitlement for compensable delay and assess concurrency of delay within a window of time. The analysis simulates the as-built conditions within a schedule window and then delays are removed from the CPM model. If the forecasted project finish date "collapses" but-for or absent compensable delays, then entitlement for compensable time-related costs can be demonstrated. This article addresses the usage of the Collapsed As-Built Windows protocol and the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology.
It is common that an unanticipated event or issue may cause delay and extend the overall completion of a project. It is also common that project stakeholders may dispute the responsibility for a project issue that caused delay and extended the overall completion of a project. A project issue can become contested, cause multiple delays, affect several areas of a project, occur at different points in time, and become intertwined with non-contested issues. To achieve an equitable resolution of a contested project issue that caused delay, it is imperative for an analyst to answer the following basic questions:
On large and complex projects, the process of evaluating delay issues is further complicated when the schedule file is comprised of numerous process areas/units, thousands of activities with activity groups spanning many months or years, and multiple critical and near-critical paths. One retrospective forensic schedule analysis that can be used to evaluate concurrency and quantify compensable delay is the Collapsed As-Built schedule analysis method applied on a windows basis (AACE® International Recommended Practice 29R-03, MIP 3.9).
Long International provides expert claims analysis, dispute resolution, and project management services to the Process Plant Engineering and Construction industry worldwide. Our primary focus is on petroleum refining, petrochemical, chemical, oil and gas production, mining/mineral processing, power, cogeneration, and other process plant and industrial projects. We also have extensive experience in hospital, commercial and industrial building, pipeline, wastewater, highway and transit, heavy civil, microchip manufacturing, and airport projects.
©Copyright - All Rights Reserved
DO NOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION BY AUTHOR.
3/3/2015· Construction
Best Practices In Coastal Construction
By: John Minor
With sea levels rising by some reports and inch a decade and the prediction of stronger hurricanes todays aging building stock is at risk. In addition for new construction we must learn from the past. The proliferation of coastal development begs for consistent and sustainable construction techniques.
7/5/2022· Construction
Assessment Of Problems Associated With Poor Project Management Performance
The purpose of this paper is to provide an explanation of the methodology and resources that Long International uses to arrive at its opinions on allocation of the responsibility for various problems, and the impact of those opinions on the parties’ entitlement to damages or extensions of the time of performance allowed under a Contract.
9/11/2017· Construction
Common Sense Strategies for Avoiding Construction Litigation
ln our current climate of economic prosperity and rising real estate values, the prevalence and usefulness of construction litigation may be on the wane. Much of the litigation and expert opinion in recent years has resulted in unrealistic repair schemes for the sole purpose of producing a settlement among parties to the litigation. When a plaintiff expert recommends a "remove and replace in its entirety"1 scenario (for example, arguing that all exterior stucco must be demolished and reinstalled due to a lack of expansion joints), the defense expert frequently advocates a more modest "fix what's broken" scheme to provide a minimum repair at the lowest cost. This process consumes considerable time and resources, and creates a difficult environment in which to craft a settlement. More often than not, neither party is pleased with the outcome; unreasonable plaintiff positions often result in settlement amounts ranging between 15 to 25 percent of the claim amount.
