Construction claims & forensic schedule analysis

Every delay, tested against the record.

Forty-eight animated graphs walk through the nine Method Implementation Protocols of AACE Recommended Practice 29R-03, plus the eleven delay concepts and seven named methods every analyst must know: what each method reads, how it measures delay, and where it holds up or breaks down.

48animated graphs, each with replay and full-screen present mode
9Method Implementation Protocols, MIP 3.1 through 3.9
2families: observational and modeled
29R-03AACE International forensic schedule analysis practice
The framework

One recommended practice. Nine ways to read a delay.

AACE 29R-03 sorts forensic schedule analysis by two questions. Does the analyst observe what the record shows, or model what would have happened? And is the view static, or dynamic across schedule updates? The answers lead to nine protocols.

MIPFamilyMethodWhat it does
3.1Observational · StaticGrossCompares the as-planned schedule to the as-built for the whole project in one pass. Simple and transparent, but it cannot see critical path shifts.
3.2Observational · StaticPeriodicSplits the project into periods and compares planned to as-built within each, so a delay is tied to the period in which it occurred.
3.3Observational · DynamicContemporaneous As-IsUses the schedule updates exactly as they were issued and reads the critical path window by window.
3.4Observational · DynamicContemporaneous SplitAs 3.3, with windows split at key events to isolate which delay moved the completion date.
3.5Observational · DynamicModified or RecreatedRepairs or rebuilds updates when the contemporaneous ones are missing, unreliable or inconsistent with the as-built record.
3.6Modeled · AdditiveSingle BaseInserts delay fragnets into one baseline schedule and measures the change in completion.
3.7Modeled · AdditiveMultiple BaseInserts fragnets into several updates, so each delay is measured against the schedule as it stood at that time.
3.8Modeled · SubtractiveSingle SimulationRemoves the delays from the as-built schedule in one simulation to show when the project would have finished without them.
3.9Modeled · SubtractiveMultiple BaseRepeats the subtractive simulation on multiple bases or periods and compares the results.
The Claims Lab

Forty-eight graphs. Press play.

Each graph animates when it scrolls into view. Use ↻ to replay it, ⤢ to present it full screen, and the chapters below to jump to a family of methods.

All graphs use invented illustrative data on a fictional project to show how each method works. They are not results from any client project, claim or dispute.

How we use it

Pick the method the record can support.

Check the sourcesContemporaneous schedules, as-built data and daily reports decide which protocols are even available.
Match method to evidenceThe strongest analysis the record supports, not the most elaborate one.
Test every claimEntitlement, causation, concurrency and quantum, each against the contract and the schedule.
Report it plainlyClear exhibits that a board, a mediator or a dispute board can follow in one reading.