Schedule Delay Analysis - Choosing A Method and Why Do They Differ?

Why Should You Attend:

There have always been debates and arguments over which delay analysis methodology is “the right one” or “the best method” to be used. Literally hundreds of articles have been published on this topic going back to the 1960’s. Which method is best is still a wide open issue amongst project owners, forensic schedulers, construction claims consultants, construction managers, contractors, and their attorneys. The level of debate has increased in recent years since AACE International published their Recommended Practice – Forensic Schedule Analysis. What has not been widely discussed or written about is what factors should be considered during the decision making process when choosing a delay analysis methodology for a particular project and/or specific delay claim.

This webinar will focus on the following topics:

• How should you go about choosing a schedule delay methodology for your delay claims?
• What factors and issues should be addressed before committing to a potentially lengthy, complex, and expensive process?
• Is the choice of a specific delay analysis method irrevocable once made?
• What is the risk of trying to change delay analysis methods in mid-stream?
• Why do different forensic scheduling methodologies result in different answers?

Areas Covered in the Webinar:

• Three legal factors that must be taken into account when choosing a method.
• Three technical factors affecting your decision on a forensic scheduling methodology.
• Five additional practical factors that should be considered when selecting a delay analysis method.
• Once the delay analysis method is selected and underway, can the analyst change the methodology?
• Become aware of the potential risk should the delay analyst change methods while performing the analysis or during prosecution of the claim.
• Why different delay analysis methods deliver different results, even though each method uses the same project documentation.

Who Will Benefit:

• Public and private owners
• General contractors
• Owner representatives
• Design professionals
• Construction managers
• Attorneys

Jim Zack
Executive Director, Navigant Consulting Inc

James Zack is the senior advisor and former executive director, Navigant Construction Forum™ – the construction industry’s global resource for thought leadership and best practices on avoidance and resolution of construction project disputes globally. Formerly, executive director, corporate claims management, Fluor Corporation; vice president, PinnacleOne; and senior construction claims consultant, CH2M HILL, Inc.

With 45 years’ experience he is a recognized expert in mitigation, analysis and resolution or defense of construction claims. A Fellow of AACE and RICS and a Fellow of Forensic Analysis from the International Guild of Project Controls, Mr. Zack is a Certified Forensic Claims Consultant, a Certified Construction Manager and a Project Management Professional as well as a nationally known author and speaker on construction claims.

Emily Federico
Director, Navigant Consulting Inc

Emily Federico is a Director in the Fairfield, CT and New York offices of Navigant Consulting, Inc. Ms. Federico’s experience includes the preparation and analysis of various schedule delay, acceleration, loss of productivity and cost overruns claims. Tasks performed included Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule development and detailed analyses, damage analyses, and issues analysis based on contemporaneous project documents.

Ms. Federico has also provided litigation support for depositions of Navigant experts as well as cross examination of opposition, mediation presentations including her own, and preparing Navigant’s expert for trial testimony in Federal Court. Ms. Federico’s experience while at Navigant Consulting includes the following construction project types: airports, retail shopping malls, bridges and highways, schools and universities, condominiums, spent fuel power plants, and wastewater treatment plants.

Follow us :