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.
Dates and Locations
November 12-13, 2014
Waterview Conference Center at CEB
9:00 AM - 4:00 PM
-History of Schedule Delay Analysis
Schedule Delay Basics
ii) Owner-caused delay
iii) Contractor-caused delay
iv) Force majeure delay
v) Concurrent delay
vi) Offsetting delay
viii) Re-sequencing planned schedule
ix) Projecting schedule into non-work period
x) Chronology of delay
xi) Shifting of the critical path
xii) Early Completion schedules
xiii) Updating the schedule to reflect actual progress
Expiration of Contract Time
-Changes after the expiration of contract time
-Longest Path Theory
-Background behind the 1984 Sante Fe case
-Waiver of completion/Time is of the Essense
-Concurrent Delay cases
-Standard of Proof
Group Panel Q&A
Comparison of Schedule Delay Methods to the same scenario:
-Apply 13 schedule delay analysis methods to the same identical scenario
-Understand the basic differences in implementation
-Review results and acceptability of methods
Review of AACEI Recommended Practice for Forensic Schedule Analysis
-Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International RP 29R-03
-Summary, Disclaimers and Industry Response
The 10 Myths of Schedule Delay Analysis
Case Law Update
-Cases related to Schedule Delay Methods
-Recent case history
Robert M. D’Onofrio, P.E. is a senior consultant at Capital Project Management, Inc. in Blue Bell, PA. With a prior firm, he spent five years on-site on the World Trade Center construction in New York City, where his responsibilities included review of schedule delay and disruption claims on behalf of the owner. Mr. D’Onofrio has evaluated over $4 billion in claims on construction projects. He is the co-author of Reconciling Concurrency in Schedule Delay and Constructive Acceleration 39 Pub. Cont. L.J. 161-229 (2010) and What is a Schedule Good For? A Study of Issues Posed by Schedules on Complex Projects, Constr. Law. Vol 33, No 1, 6-16, 50-54 (2013). Mr. D’Onofrio is a faculty member for Federal Publications Seminars, where he teaches courses on schedule delay analysis and loss of productivity. He is a past Governor of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE’s) Construction Institute and an editorial board member of ASCE’s Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction. Mr. D’Onofrio is a licensed professional engineer in New York and Pennsylvania. He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Cornell University, and an M.Eng. in Civil Engineering from Cornell University.
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))
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.
MEET YOUR CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
SEE INDIVIDUAL COURSES FOR AVAILABLE CREDITS
Certificates of Completion are provided to all seminar participants who attend Federal Publications Seminars courses following the event, upon request.
NCMA: CONTRACT MANAGER CERTIFICATION
All Federal Publications Seminars courses meet the course requirements of the National Contract Management Association’s certification programs. We are a proud Education Partner of the NCMA.
CPE: CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
Federal Publications Seminars is part of West Professional Development, which is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have the final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be submitted to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors through its website: www.learningmarket.org
This Program is eligible for: 13.0 (CPE) hours of credit
Program Level: Basic
Program Prerequisite: None
Advance Preparation: None
CLP: CONTINUOUS LEARNING POINTS
APPROVED FOR CLP BY
DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY
Defense Acquisition Workforce members must acquire 80 Continuous Learning Points (CLP) every two years from the date of entry into the acquisition workforce for as long as the member remains in an acquisition position per DoD Instruction 5000.66. We will provide you with documentation of points awarded for completing the event.
This Program is eligible for: 11.0 (CLP) hours of credit
CLE: CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
States have widely varying regulations regarding MCLE credit. Thomson Reuters LegalEdcenter is an approved provider in AL, AK, AR, CA, GA, IL, ME, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VI, VT, WA, WI, and WV. Credit may be applied for in other jurisdictions on request and in accordance with state MCLE rules.
This Program is eligible for:
11.0 (60 minutes), 13.0 (50 minutes)
Waterview Conference Center at CEB
1919 North Lynn Street
Arlington, VA 22209