Delay Analysis – Choosing A Method & Why You May Get Different Results

Duration 90 Mins
Level Basic & Intermediate & Advanced
Webinar ID IQW22C0346

Attend this 90-minute webinar to get answers to pressing questions, such as:

  • What is a forensic schedule analysis?
  • What types of schedule delay analysis exist and how do they differ?
  • How do you choose a schedule delay analysis method?
  • What factors and issues should be addressed before committing to a potentially lengthy and expensive process?
  • Is the choice of delay analysis methods irrevocable once made?
  • What is the risk of trying to change methods in mid-stream?
  • Why do different delay analysis methods yield different results?

The presenter will provide answers and insights concerning these issues and highlight the 11 factors a forensic scheduler should consider when making a choice.

Overview of the webinar

There have always been debates and arguments over which schedule delay analysis method is “the best method” to be used. Hundreds of articles have been published going back to the late 1960’s. Which method is best is still a wide open issue among schedulers, claim consultants, construction managers, contractors, and attorneys.  The level of debate has increased in recent years since AACE International published their Recommended Practice – Forensic Schedule Analysis (RP25R-030. What has not been widely discussed or written about is what factors should go into the decision making process when choosing a delay analysis method for a particular project or a specific claim.  Also, not often discussed is why do different methods yield different results despite using the same project records and documents.

Who should attend?

  • Contractors & subcontractors
  • Owners
  • Design professionals providing services during construction
  • Construction managers
  • Attorneys

Why should you attend?

All too many in the construction industry practitioners contend that schedule delay analysis is subject to entirely too much judgement on the part of the delay analyst. Many consider delay analysis unreliable and inaccurate. The purpose of this webinar is to set forth what delay analysts and construction attorneys need to consider when selecting a forensic scheduling methodology and why these factors are so important to the initial choice of method. Additionally, the webinar will clearly explain why different methods, relying on the same project records, can end up with different conclusions. This results not from excessive judgement on the part of the analyst, but rather on the way the various forensic schedule methods operate.

Faculty - Mr.James G. Zack

Jim is the Senior Advisor, Ankura Construction Forum™. The Forum strives to be the construction industry’s resource for thought leadership and best practices on avoidance and resolution of construction project disputes globally. Jim was eh founder and Executive Director of the Navigant Construction Forum™.  Formerly he was the Executive Director, Corporate Claims Management Group, Fluor Corporation, one of the world’s largest EPCM contractors. Mr. Zack was previously Vice President of PinnacleOne and the Executive Director of the PinnacleOne Institute and a Senior Construction Claims Consultant for CH2M HILL, Inc. Mr. Zack has, for 47 years, worked on both private and public projects throughout the U.S. and in 28 countries abroad. Mr. Zack is a Fellow of AACE International, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and the Guild of Project Controls.  In the construction claims field, he is a recognized and published expert in mitigation, analysis and resolution or defense of construction claims and disputes.  Mr. Zack is a Certified Construction Manager (CCM), a Certified Forensic Claims Consultant (CFCC) and a Project Management Professional (PMP).  Mr. Zack is an internationally recognized author and speaker in the construction claims and disputes arena.

Delay Analysis – Choosing A Method & Why You May Get Different Results.pdf


Refund / Cancellation policy
For group or any booking support, contact: