2008 Construction SuperConference, Evans Barba's Peer Review of AACE International

Copyright ©2008 Barba Consulting, Inc.1

The 2008 Construction SuperConference San Francisco, California December 11 and 12, 2008

Session E03

Evans Barba’s Peer Reviewof

AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS

I didn’t get to review it before it was published, so I thought I’d do it now.


Session E03

I didn’t get to review it before it was published, so I thought I’d do it now.

Evans Barba’s Peer Reviewof AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS


Evans Barba is the Chairman and CEO of Barba Consulting, Inc. He specializes in providing construction program management and disputes resolution services on domestic and international projects.

Mr. Barba has over 35 years experience in engineering design, construction program and project management, contract administration, critical path method scheduling, and claims and disputes resolution.

He has directed hundreds of program management and disputes resolution assignments across a broad range of infrastructure, commercial, environmental, transportation, healthcare, hospitality, power, detention, and industrial projects, as well as complex development and acquisition programs.

He has testified as an expert witness regarding schedule delay and disruption analysis, construction and project management standards of practice, contract administration, time impact analysis, and concurrent delay, among others.

He has authored numerous works on Program Management and Disputes Resolution topics and lectured internationally on these topics for over thirty years.

Mr. Barba is a Registered Professional Engineer, a Registered Professional Planner, a Certified Planning and Scheduling Professional, and a Certified Forensic Claims Consultant.

Evans M. Barba, PE, PSPChairman and CEO

Barba Consulting, Inc.Five Greentree Centre525 Route 73 SouthMarlton, N.J. [email protected]


Opening RemarksThe “Forensic Schedule Analysis RP” was developed for the stated purpose of providing a “… unifying” technical reference for the forensic application of critical path method (CPM) scheduling.

Based on my review of this purported “Recommended Practice” I have concluded that notwithstanding its positive attributes, there are a number of significant issues/problems that need to be resolved prior to viewing or embracing this document as a bona fide Forensic Schedule Analysis “Recommended Practice.”

Recognizing that AACE has published Practice No. 29R-03, labeling it a “Recommended Practice” relative to the forensic application of CPM scheduling, as a professional who has served and continues to serve as a testifying expert relative to the performance of forensic schedule analyses, I have reviewed this document with a criticaleye.


Opening Remarks (cont’d)

It is with respect for the effort exerted by those involved in the preparation of Practice No. 29R-03, and out of deep concern for the manner in which this document, in its current state, can be “used” and “misused,” “interpreted” and “misinterpreted” by those involved in the forensic schedule analysis arena (including practitioners and legal counsel who advocate on behalf of their clients) that I offer my “Peer Review Critique” of Practice No 29R-03.


History of Schedule Delay AnalysisCPM has been utilized as a forensic tool since the claims explosion in “the seventies”

Numerous different approaches to analysis were developed

Hundreds of articles and publications have been written regarding different approaches to analysis

Some books describe how to perform some of the analyses

Inconsistency in application and “naming” of various methods

Courts and Boards have found some approaches to analysis acceptable and others not acceptable

There has not been any industry wide recognized set of guidelines and principles


The first set of guidelines…the SCL Protocol

In October 2002, the British Society of Construction Law published its “Delay and Disruption Protocol”

The Protocol sets forth various recommendations regarding schedule development, updating and the performance of Forensic analyses

The Protocol recommends that TIA’s be used prospectively and, forensically, retrospectively to evaluate delays and the right to an EOT

The Protocol takes the position that forensic TIA’s should not take advantage of actual, as-built knowledge, but should be based on what the parties knew at the time of the “risk event(s)” in question.


The Need For Guidelines

In the 2002/2003 timeframe, both AACE International and the Project Management Institute College of Scheduling undertook efforts to establish a set of forensic schedule analysis guidelines.

In June 2007 AACE International published the “Forensic Schedule Analysis Recommended Practice No. 29R-03.”

The Project Management Institute College of Scheduling is nearing completion of its efforts in this regard.


The stated purpose of the RP “…is to provide a unifying technical reference for the forensic application of critical path (CPM) scheduling.”


The RP defines the word “forensic” as:

1. Relating to, used in, or appropriate for courts of law or for public discussion or argumentation;

2. Of, relating to, or used in debate or argument; rhetorical;

3. Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law: a forensic laboratory.


Overview Of The RP Peer Review Group Composition

30

136


The Intent Of The RP

Identify and quantify

Compensable delayExcusable delayInexcusable delaySchedule variancesSchedule AccelerationSchedule disruption, andApportion delay between contracting parties

On the basis of these analyses, legal conclusions concerning monetary damages flow.


Overview of the RP - Structure

Contents

Organization and Scope

Source Validation

Method Implementation

Analysis Evaluation

Choosing a Method


Review Comment No. 1

As it stands, Practice No. 29R-03 should not be entitled a “Recommended Practice.” It is would be more accurate to characterize and title this document:

“Forensic Schedule Analysis Guidelines: Definitions, principles, and a description of the steps involved in performing various methods of forensic schedule analysis.”


Review Comment No. 1 (cont’d)

As it stands, this document should also include introductory language similar to that AACE uses in its other “Practice” documents it issues, which states:

“This Document is intended to provide certain guidelines, not to establish a standard. This Document provides an overview of principles and guidelines applicable to the performance of certain methods of forensic analysis in current use, irrespective of whether said methods have been deemed “acceptable” or “unacceptable” by various Courts of Law.



A publication that purports to be a “Recommended Practice” should incorporate “legal Input” in the context of discussing what has beenand is currently deemed acceptable and unacceptable by Courts and Boards relative to the performance of forensic schedule analyses. Such a publication should also periodically issue updates regarding significant developments in the Courts and Boards relative to the use of these analyses.

AACE’s Practice NO.29R-03 does not include any discussion relative to the methods of analysis that have been deemed acceptableand unacceptable by Courts of Law.



A publication that purports to be a “Recommended Practice” should identify the methods of analysis set forth therein that have been deemed acceptable by Courts and those that have been rejected/deemed unacceptable by Courts.

AACE’s Practice NO.29R-03 does not include any discussion whatsoever relative to whether the methods of analysis discussedtherein have been deemed acceptable or unacceptable by Courts ofLaw.



A publication that purports to be a “Recommended Practice” should “rank” the various methods of analysis discussed therein on the basis of the accuracy, quality and availability of source documentation and information available to an analyst undertaking the performance of a forensic schedule analysis.

AACE’s Practice No. 29R-03 does not rank the various methods of analysis discussed therein.



While Practice No. 29R-03 carries the title “Recommended Practice,” it does not address any of the aforementioned matters. As result, Practice No. 29R-03 should not be “entitled” or “viewed" as a bona fide Forensic Schedule Analysis “Recommended Practice” manual.

As discussed hereinafter, as it stands, Practice No.29R-03 is misleading and can be used as (i) a “weapon” to undermine the credibility of methods of analysis that have historically been deemed acceptable by Courts and Boards, and (ii) a “vehicle” “resurrect”and give credence to other methods of analysis that have been deemed unacceptable by Courts and Boards.


DELETE


Organization and Scope



I take exception to the statement “… validation for forensic purposes may be fundamentally different than validation for purposes of project controls. What may be adequate for project controls may not be adequate for forensic scheduling, and vice versa.

I likewise take exception to the statement that the initial focus in validating a baseline schedule is “… in assuring the functional utility of the baseline data as opposed to assuring the reasonableness of the information represented by the data or optimization of the schedule logic. So for example, the validation of activity durations against quantity estimates is probably not something that would be performed as part of this protocol.”


Review Comment No. 2 (cont’d)With respect to the statement:

“The test is, if it is possible to build the project in the manner indicated in the schedule and still be in compliance with the contract, then do not make any subjective changes to improve it or make it more reasonable”

I agree that “subjective” changes should not be made to a contractor’s baseline schedule. However, to the extent the contractor's baseline schedule has not been approved, is not in compliance with the contract, has objective logic errors and/or durations that are unreasonable, it is appropriate to “correct” the baseline so as to establish a “reasonable baseline schedule” for purposes of analysis. A review of case law reveals the necessity to establish a “reasonable baseline schedule” when performing a forensic schedule analysis. Practice No. 29R-03 does not appear to support this position.


The Baseline Schedule: What do you do if……

The Contractor's Baseline Schedule was not approved by the Owner due to the fact that it did not comply with the express requirements of the Contract Documents.

Contemporaneously, the Owner had advised the contractor of issues of non-compliance that were never addressed completely by the contractor; yet the schedule was “updated” monthly and was used to generate the contractor’s monthly payment applications.

A review of the Contractor’s Baseline Schedule reveals objective mistakes in logic and a lack of relationships between many activities that bring into question the “reasonableness” of the schedule.


The Baseline Schedule (cont’d): What do you do if……

If making corrections to the Contractor’s Baseline Schedule to bring it into compliance with Contract requirements results in extending the Project duration and/or altering the critical path from that in the Contractor’s “non-compliant schedule,” what do you do?

If a review of the Contractor’s bid information in conjunction with schedule resource information reveals that certain durations in the schedule are not “reasonable,” what do you do?

Do you perform your analysis using the baseline schedule as originally prepared by the Contractor?.... use the “corrected”contractually compliant schedule as the baseline schedule? ….or do something else, such as perform multiple analyses?


Review Comment No.3

Practice No. 29R-03 should include a discussion of the above matters.

In a dispute situation, the parties should consider working together to agree on a Baseline Schedule for purposes of analysis by their respective “Experts.”



If the source of your as-built data comes from monthly schedule updates, or the “last update” on the project (which in many Government Contracts is referred to as the “As-Built Schedule”), it is important to determine whether the updates in question were accepted, rejected, or challenged by the Owner.

Experience indicates that actual start and actual finish dates in updates that were contemporaneously determined, submitted, and accepted by an Owner, are typically acknowledged as being correct by Trier's of Fact .… regardless of what the daily reports might otherwise suggest.



To the extent that given dates are not supported by the daily reports, do not simply assume the dates are incorrect … explore the matter in discovery and “nail the dates down.”

As-Built Schedule data is something the parties should be able to mutually agree to. In the interest of narrowing the issues to beaddressed in a given dispute, the parties should consider havingtheir respective experts agree on an As-Built Schedule.

The “winners” in such a situation would be the parties to the dispute, their respective counsel, as well as the Trier of Fact.



I disagree with the recommendation that “… the start of an activity “…be considered the first date associated with a series of substantive work days on the activity.”

Adhering to this recommendation could result in an analyst “missing”the occurrence of a delay in the work, which is potentially “solely critical” or “concurrent” with another delay.

A demonstrative graphic depicting this situation follows.


10

As-Planned Critical Path

MOBILIZATION

Note: Planned relationships are “Finish to Start”

(F/S)

0 10 20 30 40

EXCAVATION

10 10

FRP SLAB

10

FRP WALLS

10DataDate

As-Built Schedule

MOBILIZATION

10

EXCAVATION 19 26 288

2

FRP WALLS

3210

41

Differing Condition Work

FRP SLAB

16 17 26

FRP SLAB



Comments relative to the use of schedule updates in performing aforensic analysis are set forth hereinafter.


Page numbers 33 and 34 identify nine steps related to the application of

this methodology


Factors to Consider.

Misleading & Incorrect

Subjective

Irrelevant


Review Comment No.6

While this method discusses basics relative to performing an as-planned vs. as-built analysis, performing such an analysis using a “single time period approach” should be avoided.

Analyses performed in such a manner oftentimes result in the establishment of an as-built critical path some have referred to as the “fuzzy” as-built critical path determination, which is based almost exclusively on an Expert’s “opinion” and “feeling” as to where the as-built critical path ran on the project.


I II III IV

As-Planned Critical Path

As-Built Critical Path

Overall Delay


??? Confusing statement

Incorrect & Misleading

Subjective & Misleading

Factors to Consider


Review Comment No. 7I disagree with the statement that this method is not suitable to projects of extended duration, or where the sequence of the workvaried from that originally planned.

I disagree with the statement that this method is not applicable to projects built in a manner significantly different than planned.

I disagree with the statement that the use of multiple windows of time provides the “illusion” of greater accuracy than 3.1 where none exists.

Properly implemented this method of analysis is inherently more accurate and substantially increases the overall accuracy and credibility of the analysis.



Contrary to the statements included under Section L. 2 of Practice No. 29R-03, “ Weaknesses and disadvantages,” As-Planned vs. As-Built analysis is a recognized method of analysis that has been deemedacceptable by Courts and Boards of Contract Appeals.

The statements in Practice No. 29R-03 to the effect that as-planned vs. as-built analyses are not suitable for projects of extended duration, etc., should be eliminated from the document.

The misleading and erroneous statement included under the


[ Factors to consider ]

R

anmodeled analysis.

Updates depict projected


Barba Comments

The implementation of this method relies on the validity of the contemporaneous schedule updates. What if, however, …

The Contractor’s updates were not approved/accepted by the Owner due to the fact that they failed to comply with the express requirements of the Contract Documents, or

The Contractor unilaterally added activities to the schedule, revised schedule logic, and changed activity durations in the schedule updates without providing any explanation or justification for the changes, or


Barba Comments (cont’d)

During construction the Contractor asserted that the updates did not represent its plan for the work due to the fact that the Owner had allegedly failed to timely grant extensions of time for changes and delays that occurred in the work. What do you do?

Do you “correct” the projected plan of performance in the updates, or use them “as is.”

What if the “corrections” alter the projected critical path or extend the projected date of completion of the Work?

These are extremely significant issues that go to the heart of being able to use MIP Nos. 3.3, 3.4. Practice No. 29R-03 does not discuss these matters.


Review Comment No. 8Schedule updates contain information to the “left” and “right” of the data date.

While it may be that the “projected plan” information in given schedule updates may not be suitable for purposes of analysis, the as-built data behind the data date is typically of significant value ….. especially as relates to the “progress achieved/percentage of completion” data related to work performed.

In conjunction with a “Reasonable Baseline Schedule,” this “progress achieved” data can be used to perform a “chronological and cumulative” forensic delay analysis, which for discussion purposes I will refer to as a “Contemporaneous Approach” to analysis.


“Contemporaneous Approach” (also referred to as a “Time Impact Analysis” or “Windows Analysis”)

The “Contemporaneous Approach” is a chronological and cumulative approach, which marches through time measuring the impact of critical delays upon the performance of the work as ofvarious “milestone” points in time.

Milestones can include the commencement or completion of given activities, such as excavation, foundation, superstructure, execution of a subcontract, etc.

The analysis is fundamentally a comparison between what was originally planned to happen on a Project and what actually happened.


The analysis is geared towards determining the status of completion of a Project both prior to and after the occurrence of delays or changes in the Work, and measuring the effect of the changed work or delay on the as-built critical path and the projected date of project completion.

The performance of the analysis entails utilizing an “ As-Planned (Baseline) Schedule,” “As-Built Schedule Performance Information”and a series of “Statused and Updated Schedules.”

The analysis facilitates the identification of changes in the projected critical path, as well as the identification of the as-built critical path.

Reference SAE/Americon-Mid Atlantic, Inc. v. General Services Admin, GSBCA No.12,294 et al., 98-2 B.C.A.

“Contemporaneous Approach” (cont’d)


Overall Delay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

TF I

TF II

TF III

TF IV

TF V

TF VI

TF VII

SubstantialCompletion

NTPAs-Planned (Baseline) Schedule

60

As-Built Schedule

ActualSubstantialCompletion

115


10 Day Projected

Completion Delay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Update #1

“Statused”

“Re-sequenced and

Updated”

As-Built

10

10 Day Anticipated

“Gain”10

“A” “B” “C”20 20 20

NTP

As-Planned Schedule

SC

“B”

“C”

Projected On-Time

Completion

10

20

10

“A” “B”

10

FF 5

SC

Update #1

“B” “C”

20 2010

“A”

Projected PlanSC

“A”

NTP

“A”


320 340 360 380 400 420 435

Projected “On-Time” Completion

Updated Using

Progress Override

Updated Using

Retained Logic

“A”

“B”

“C”

“D”

“E”

“F”

Update #18Update #17

“True” Projected

Completion Date

“A” “B” “C” “D” “E” “F”Update #18

Anybody’s Guess


Baseline

Update #1 Delay

GainUpdate #2 Delay

Update #3Gain

Delay

Contemporaneous, Split Method

Time

Frame I

TF II

TF III

TF IV

Delay

Gain

Project Complete

Overall Delay



Similar to MIP 3.3, to the extent the “projected plan” information in the project schedule updates may not be suitable for purposes ofperforming a “split-type” analysis, the as-built data behind the data date may still be of significant value ….. especially as relates to the “progress achieved/percentage of completion” data related to work performed.

As previously stated, this data can be used in performing a chronological and cumulative forensic schedule delay analysis.



Too seemingly “contrived.”

Would not include this approach in a “Recommended Practice.”


[ Factors to consider ]

Is a method that does not consider what actually happened on the project.



This method of analysis should not be included in any forensic schedule analysis “Recommended Practice.”

The manner in which this method is presented in Practice No. 29R-03 elevates it to a level of apparent “credibility,” which represents a giant step backwards in the application of CPM scheduling in the performance of a forensic schedule analysis.



Practice No. 29R-03 should clarify the fundamental differencebetween a bona fide Prospective “Time Impact Analysis,” which is used to estimate the effect a given change or delay may have on the performance of the work, in advance of performance of the changed work or occurrence of a delay, and an Impacted As-Planned Analysis, which is a theoretical/modeled “after-the-fact”method of analysis, which purports to establish the duration of delay and number of days of time extension due a contractor based on inserting an “as-built fragnet” into the schedule in effect at the time the change was issued or delay occurred.”

In this regard, a bona fide Prospective “Time Impact Analysis”involves inserting an “estimated fragnet” comprised of activities and logic that represent the contactors best estimate of future events related to the performance of the changed work or occurrence of a delay into the schedule in effect at the time the change was issued or delay occurred – NOT an “as-built” fragnet.



In an effort to legitimatize the use of the Impacted As-Planned Method and circumvent the objections to said analyses that have been levied by industry practitioners, Courts and Boards of Contract Appeals, various analysts “describe/label” their Impacted As-Planned Analyses: “Retrospective Time Impact Analysis:” or “Schedule Time Impact Analysis.”

This is a “wolf in sheep's clothing” approach to analysis.

Assigning the label/name “Time Impact Analysis” to the performance of an Impacted As-Planned Analysis does no change the fact that such analyses are and have been deemed fatally flawed in terms of attempting to establish a contractors right to an extension of time.


The “Impacted As-Planned Approach” is an inherently theoretical analysis, which purports to establish what would, could, should or might have happened based on inserting an as-built fragnet into the projected plan of performance of the schedule update in effect at the time the change was issued or the delay initiated/occurred.

The result of such an analysis is a theoretical/hypothetical projectionof the point in time to which the project completion date “would have been pushed” had the Work on the Project in question actually been performed “as projected” in the “Impacted schedule.”

The fatal flaw in such an analysis is that it fails to take into consideration the actual, as-built performance of all of the work, fails to take into account all excusable delays, contractor problems and delays, and does not establish the as-built critical path to project completion.




Just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you should do it!

This method of analysis has been widely rejected by Courts and is generally recognized throughout the Construction Consulting Profession as a fatally flawed method of forensic analysis (see the following page of this presentation).


Impacted As-Planned Method (Quoted from “Construction Scheduling : Preparation, Liability, and

Claims,” Wickwire. Driscoll, Hurlbut and Hillman)

“This approach, which purports to present a fair picture of responsibility for owner delays on the project by impacting the original CPM on the project solely with owner delays encounteredduring performance, suffers from one fatal flaw: it ignores what actually happened on the project, including excusable delays and delays by the contractor. Actual performance by all parties must be considered.”

“… appellants fragnet analyses did not reflect the actual start and finish dates of the impacting and impacted activities (finding 40). Hence those analyses are not sufficiently credible to show the duration of delays. See Youngdale & Sons Construction Co. v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 516, 552-53 (1993).”


How Practice No. 29-03 can be misused and misinterpreted

Notwithstanding all of the above, “disturbingly,” Practice No. 29R-03 can be read to support the proposition that AACE views the Impacted As-Planned Method of analysis as an “accepted” method of analysis that can be used prospectively or retrospectively tosupport and establish a contractors right to an extension of time.

In this regard, under Section 1.1, “Introduction,” of Practice 29R-03 the following is stated:

“It is hoped that the implementation of the recommended Practice will result in minimizing disagreements over technical implementation of accepted techniques and allow the providers and consumers of these services to concentrate…” (Emphasis added)


Thereafter, under Section 3.6, A, the following is stated:

“3.6 can be used prospectively and retrospectively. Prospectively it can be used to forecast future impacts. Retrospectively, it relies on the forward looking calculations to the right of the date date.” (Emphasis added).

Not only does the above statement appear to “endorse” the use of the “Impacted As-Planned Method” in performing a retrospective forensic analysis, but by stating that this method can also be used “prospectively,” AACE has equated the terminology “Impacted As-Planned” with the performance of a bona fide Prospective “Time Impact Analysis,” which serves to further confuse and foster the notion that the Impacted As-Planned Method is an “accepted,” valid method of Forensic schedule analysis.

This is a serious issue which AACE needs to address and rectify as quickly as possible.



Same comments as those related to the “Single Base” application of the “Impacted As-Planned Method.”


[ Factors to Consider ]

Irrelevant

Is



This is also a theoretical type of analysis, which in my opinionshould not be included in a “Recommended Practice”

Comments similar to those related to use of the “Impacted As-Planned Method”


Barba Suggested Ranking of Methods Discussed in Practice No. 29R-03

MIP 3.4 - Valid approach if updates are “valid”… if the “projected portions” of the updates are not valid, use “Contemporaneous Approach.”

MIP 3.3 - Valid approach if updates are “valid”… if the “projected portions” of the updates are not valid, use “Contemporaneous Approach.”

MIP 3.2 - Valid approach to the extent there are no updates or the “projected planned portions of the available updates are not “valid.”

MIP 3.1 - Would only use MIP 3.2.________________________________________________________

MIP 3.5 - Too seemingly “contrived.”

MIP 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 - As discussed, Not recommended for use


Summary Findings and Conclusions

Practice No. 29R-03 represents a step forward in terms of attempting to establish a unifying technical reference for the forensic application of critical path (CPM) scheduling. However, it has not yet achieved that goal.

In its current state, the “RP” should not be viewed as a “Recommended Practice” or “standard” relative to the performance of Forensic Schedule Analyses; rather it should be viewed as a work in progress, whose ultimate goal is establish a set of guidelines that will serve as a technical reference for the forensic application of critical path scheduling.


Summary Findings and Conclusions (cont’d)

As discussed in this presentation, notwithstanding its positive attributes, there are a number of significant issues/problems, which I believe AACE should move quickly to address and resolve.

As it stands, Practice No. 29R-03 should not be entitled a “Recommended Practice.” It would be more accurate to characterize and title this document:

“Forensic Schedule Analysis Guidelines: Definitions, principles, and a description of the steps involved in performing various methods of forensic schedule analysis.”



As it stands, this document should also include introductory language similar to that AACE uses in its other “Practice” documents it issues, which states:

“This Document is intended to provide certain guidelines, not to establish a standard. This Document provides an overview of principles and guidelines applicable to the performance of certain methods of forensic analysis in current use, irrespective of whether said methods have been deemed “acceptable” or “unacceptable” by various Courts of Law.



While Practice No. 29R-03 carries the title “Recommended Practice,” it does not “rank” the methods of analysis discussed therein, nor does it provide any “legal input” or guidance in terms of identifying whether the methods of analysis discussed therein have been deemed “acceptable” or “unacceptable” by Courts of Law. Due to these factors alone, Practice No. 29R-03 should not be “entitled”or “viewed" as a bona fide Forensic Schedule Analysis “Recommended Practice” manual.



It would be more appropriate and accurate to describe Practice No. 29R-03 as a “Manual” that discusses (i) basic principles and guidelines relative to the performance of forensic schedule analyses, and (ii) suggested steps to be utilized in implementing the various methods of analysis discussed therein (recognizing that there are and may well be other methods of analysis used by others that are not discussed in the Manual).



In addition, given AACE’s decision not to “rank” or include any “legal input” in Practice No. 29R-03 relative to whether the methods of analysis discussed therein have deemed acceptable or unacceptable by Courts, it should be made clear that nothing in the Manual should be viewed as an endorsement or condemnation of the use of any one of the methods of analysis discussed therein over another. In this regard, the “Advantages and Disadvantages”sections set forth under each of the “MIP” sections should be re-named: “Factors to Consider.” As it stands, the wording under the various section headings “Advantages and Disadvantages,” are extremely misleading, in some instances incorrect, and in any event are subject to being misinterpreted.



As it stands, Practice No.29R-03 is misleading and can be used as (i) a “weapon” to undermine the credibility of methods of analysis that have historically been deemed acceptable by Courts and Boards, and (ii) a “vehicle” “resurrect” and give credence to other methods of analysis that have been deemed unacceptable by Courts and Boards.



In closing, I would ask that if you share any of the concerns raised in this presentation that you immediately let your voices be heard.

Contact AACE and let them know what you think.

WHAT YOU THINK MATTERS!

I intend to contact AACE regarding all of the above.

To the extent you agree or disagree with any of the above, I would welcome hearing from you ………… I can be reached at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected].


THE ENDThank you for attending this Session

and Have a Great Day!

2008 Construction SuperConference, Evans Barba's Peer Review of AACE International

Documents

Transcript of 2008 Construction SuperConference, Evans Barba's Peer Review of AACE International