Studies show that when applied to the same identical scenario, different schedule delay analysis methods will produce a variety of different results.  By breaking each method down to its most basic elements, it is easy to identify the differences between methods.  Courts and boards have opined on a variety of different methods in what appears to be a myriad of case law, but upon closer inspection is actually fairly consistent with regard to a number of basic principles.

In this course, the different schedule delay methods are ranked in order of acceptance based on case law and legal decisions.  The standard principles for schedule delay analysis are outlined, and a review of recent case law explains what makes specific methods preferable to other methods.  You will also learn how the expiration of contract time can endanger a project, and how to properly resolve delay claims.  The course will cover everything participants in the construction arena need to know about industry publications including the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineers International’s Recommended Practice for Forensic Schedule Analysis.

Learn from the most published experts on schedule delay analysis methods in the industry; including the authors of the landmark paper Reconciling Concurrency in Schedule Delay and Constructive Acceleration in the Construction Law issue of the American Bar Association’s Public Contract Law Journal.  The course book also includes special commentary by the top delay expert in the country that AACE asked to review its Recommended Practice 29R-03 on Forensic Schedule Analysis.


Some key topics and course objectives include: 

• Understand the various methods that have been used by experts for forensic schedule delay analysis and the pros and cons of those considered acceptable

• Understand the importance of key principles and factors in performing a legitimate schedule and delay analysis

• Understanding the difficult issues of acceleration, loss of productivity, cumulative impact, and successfully managing the contract completion date

• How to avoid, mitigate, and successfully resolve potential delay claims

• Eliminating the mystery of the software in forensic delay analysis

• Update on established and current trends in case law related to schedule and delay analysis

• What participants in the construction arena need to know about the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineers Recommended Practice 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis



The course instructors:

Robert M. D’Onofrio, P.E. is an expert on construction schedule delay claims for URS Corporation and recently authored with Stephen Dale an authoritative review and comparison of all schedule delay analysis methods in Reconciling Concurrency in Schedule Delay and Constructive Acceleration (39 Pub. Cont. L.J. 161-229 (2010)). 

Stephen Dale is Associate General Counsel for Litigation with Parsons Brinkerhoff and was formerly a partner with the law firm Smith Pachter McWhorter, PLC where his practice focused on construction law, government contracts, and commercial litigation.  Mr. Dale is the co-author of Reconciling Concurrency in Schedule Delay and Constructive Acceleration (39 Pub. Cont. L.J. 161-229 (2010)). 

Thomas J. Driscoll is Senior Vice President with Hill International.  Tom has over 45 years of program, project, construction management and claims experience, specializing in large-scale construction projects. Prior to joining Hill, Driscoll was a Senior Vice President with URS Corp.  Mr. Driscoll has taught severel courses on government construction contracting for Federal Publications Seminars.

Reginald M. Jones is a Partner in Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.  Reggie has a national federal government contracts and construction practice and is currently the Chair of the Construction Division of the American Bar Association’s Section of Public Contract Law.  Mr. Jones has developed and taught several courses on government construction contracting for Federal Publications Seminars.