27/7/2016 AACEInternationalMeetings/ConferencesAnnualMeeting2015AnnualMeetingTechnicalProgramAbstractsCLAIMSANDDISPUTERESOL

FAQs|SearchSite|Forums|ContactUs|OnlineStore|Login|

CLAIMSANDDISPUTERESOLUTION(CDR)
Meetings/Conferences>AnnualMeeting >2015AM>TechnicalProgram>Abstracts

Thefollowingisapoolofpapersandpresentationsfromwhichthefinaltechnicalprogramwillbecreated.

Advertisements:

Theabstractsarelistedaccordingtosubjectcategoryasfollows(SUBJECTTOCHANGE):

(CDR1815)ForensicScheduleAnalysisandDiscretionaryLogic
PrimaryAuthor:MrJohnCLivengoodCCPCFCCPSPNavigant
Time/Location:MON10:0011:00/Room302

ForensicScheduleAnalysis(FSA)andrealtimeschedulereviewsdonothandleCPMscheduleswithsignificantamountsofdiscretionary
logicverywell.Inthelastdecade,majortheoreticalandpracticaladvancementshavebeenmadeofwhichFSAmethodologyismost
appropriate to evaluate schedule delay, largely through the introduction of AACEs RP29R03. Nevertheless, discretionary logic the
type of logic that is not dictated by either the contract or the construction necessity of the project continues to cause difficulty in
creating fair and accurate analyses of schedules during the course of the project. Further, these analytical problems persist in the
methodologies associated with postconstruction FSA. This paper considers several applications and refinements of existing forensic
delay methodologies, particularly AsPlanned vs. AsBuilt, which can assist in identifying the asbuilt critical path and delay
responsibilityinprojectswithsignificantamountsofdiscretionarylogic.

(CDR1868)ChangingTrendinRiskAllocationDifferingSiteConditions
PrimaryAuthor:MrJamesGZackJrCFCCNavigantConsulting,Inc.
CoAuthor:MrStevenA.CollinsNavigantConsulting,Inc.
Time/Location:MON11:1512:15/Room302

ThispaperperspectivehasbeenpreparedbytheNavigantConstructionForumauthorsinordertoexploreaseriesofCourtandBoard
of Contract Appeals decisions concerning coverage of the Differing Site Conditions clause. While preparing an earlier paper entitled
TrendsinConstructionClaimsandDisputestheauthorsnotedthattherehavebeenaseriesofdecisionsissuedbyCourtsandBoardsof
ContractAppealsovertimewhichseemtobeincreasingcontractorriskundertheDifferingSiteConditionsclause.Thispaperexplores
suchdecisionsandhighlightstherisksforcontractorsconcerningdifferingsiteconditionclaims.Thepaperalsodrawsconclusionsand
setsforthsomepracticalrecommendationsforbothownersandcontractorsindealingwiththerisksofdifferingsiteconditions.

(CDR1878)USMajorTaskOrderContractingandNZCollaborativeAlliancesComparison

PrimaryAuthor:MrJorgeAndresRuedaBenavidesIowaStateUniversity
CoAuthor:DrEricScheepbouwerUniversityofCanterburyDrDouglasDGransbergPEFRICSCCPIowaStateUniversity
Time/Location:SUN2:453:45/Room302
Projectdeliverymodelsthatusearelationalcontractingapproach,andoperateusinganincreasinglevelofintegrationforthedelivery,
are becoming more prevalent and are touted to be the magic bullet to eliminate disputes and maximize collaboration. Such
contractingmechanisms,knowninNewZealandasalliancingcontracting,havebeeninuseinthiscountryforovertwodecadesandare
becomingubiquitousinAustralasiaforthedeliveryofcomplexinfrastructureconstructionprojects.Alliancingskeycharacteristicisa
nolitigationclausethathasledUSagenciestoshyawayfromitasimpossibletoimplementunderUSlaw.Thispaperarguesthatthe
USDepartmentofDefensesmajortaskordercontractisverysimilartothecollaborativealliancecontractcurrentlyinusetodeliver
themassivereconstructionprogramestimatedatapproximatelyNZ$2.5billioninCanterbury,NewZealand.Thepapercomparescase
studies of a US and a New Zealand project and finds that US public owners can accrue most of the advantages provided through
alliancingcontractingwithouttheneedtoincludeanolitigationclause.

(CDR1920)MinimizingFinancialLossesUsingBuilder'sRiskInsurance
PrimaryAuthor:MsDaynaLAndersonTheKenrichGroup
CoAuthor:MrSethD.LamdenNealGerber&EisenbergLLP
Time/Location:MON2:003:00/Room302

Damage to work, materials, and equipment during construction can impair the ability of project stakeholders to meet budgetary and
scheduling targets. Delays resulting from the repair and replacement of damaged work can lead to other unanticipated expenses,
including lost revenue, additional carrying costs, and other socalled soft costs. Builders risk insurance is often the most effective
waytomanagetheseunanticipatedcostsanddelays.However,thecoverageprovidedbythebuildersriskpolicyshouldbeconsistent
withtheexpectationsofallpartiesthathaveaninsurableinterestinpropertyrelatedtotheconstructionproject.Thisarticleprovides
an overview of the types of coverage provided by a builders risk insurance policy and discusses policy provisions that can lead to
coveragedisputesbetweenbuildersriskinsurersandtheirinsureds.Thisarticlealsoprovidesrecommendedpracticesforaninsuredto
followwhenpresentingaclaimtoabuilder'sriskinsurertoavoidorminimizetheimpactofcoveragedisputes.

http://www.aacei.org/am/2015/CDR.shtml

1/2

27/7/2016 AACEInternationalMeetings/ConferencesAnnualMeeting2015AnnualMeetingTechnicalProgramAbstractsCLAIMSANDDISPUTERESOL

(CDR1965)PerfectingtheFixedPerspectiveWindowsDelayAnalysis
PrimaryAuthor:MrJohnJacksonEncoreGroup
Time/Location:CANCELLED

WiththevarietyofDelayAnalysisTechniquesavailabletoschedulereviewersandanalysts,itisdifficulttoknowandimplementthe
most reliable and most effective way of demonstrating a true and accurate impact calculation caused by delay. Contractual
requirementsfortimeextensionrequestsusingthecommonterm,TimeImpactAnalysis,areincreasinglyappearingthroughoutthe
constructionindustry.However,theAACEInternationalsRecommendedPractice(29R03)listsnine(9)differentanalysismethodsthat
are commonly labeled Time Impact Analysis. While each methodology may have its appropriate implementation, certain
methodologiescanbeimplementedtoproduceamorereliableandaccurateresult.InthefollowingparagraphstheFixedPerspective
Windows Delay Analysis (Analysis) method will be presented, which incorporates the strengths of various retrospective methods,
while minimizing, if not alleviating the weaknesses. The result is an analysis that, when prepared correctly, is easy to calculate and
easytodefend.

(CDR1967)DeterminingtheMeasuredMileforLostProductivityClaims
PrimaryAuthor:DrTongZhaoPEPSPDeltaConsultingGroup,Inc
CoAuthor:MrMarkDunganDeltaConsultingGroup,Inc
Time/Location:MON3:454:45/Room302

Provingandquantifyinglostproductivityisoneofthemostchallengingareasinconstructionclaims.Amongtheavailableapproaches,
themeasuredmilemethodisrankedasthemostpreferredmethodtoquantifylostproductivityaccordingtoAACEInternational.The
methodispreferred,inpart,becauseiteliminatesdisputesoverthevalidityoftheoriginalestimatebycomparingactualproductivityof
similarwork,withtheprimarydifferencebeingtheimpactsinquestion.Sincethedistinctionbetweentheimpactedandnonimpacted
sectionsinmanyprojectsisnotreadilyobservable,researchersandprofessionalshavedevelopedvariousprocedurestohelpidentify
the measured mile. In the paper, the authors will review various techniques that have been developed previously and present their
ImprovedBaselineMethod.

(CDR1997)AnImprovedMeasuredMileMethodologyforHeavilyDisruptedProjects
PrimaryAuthor:MrNelsonGallardoFTIConsulting
Time/Location:SUN4:305:30/Room302

Constructionprojectsareoftenimpactedbyspecificdisruptiveeventsthatoccurduringdefinedperiodsoftimeaffectingtheplanned
productivity of work activities within a construction sequence. Typically in construction disputes, the Measured Mile methodology to
calculate lost labor productivity is used as it is considered the most precise calculation method and therefore, the most recognized
approach when claims are presented in arbitration proceedings. However, the normal application of the Measured Mile is not
recommendedtoanalyzelostproductivityinactivitiesthatarecontinuouslydisrupted.Thislimitationcanbeovercomebytheuseofa
baseline Productivity Analysis that generates a more precise calculation where no specific Measured Mile periods are available. This
paperisacasestudyoftheapplicationofabaselinemethodinaheavilyandpermanentlyimpactedprojecttodemonstratethatthe
traditionalMeasuredMileisnotaCureAllMedicine.

(CDR2047)UnifiedEvaluationCriteriaforDelayandProductivityAnalyses
PrimaryAuthor:MrKenjiPHoshinoCFCCPSPProjectControls&Forensics,LLC
Time/Location:TUE8:009:00/Room302

This paper dispels the perceived inconsistency on methodology ranking between AACE Recommended Practices 25R03 for Loss of
Productivity on one hand and 29R03 for Forensic Schedule Analysis on the other. By distinguishing ranking of methods from
evaluationofimplementation,itpavesthewayforameaningfuldialogamongpractitionersandusersforaunifiedsetofcriteriafora
systematizedandreliableevaluationofbothCPMdelayanalysesandlossofproductivityanalyses.

Membership|Certification|ProfessionalDevelopment|Career/MentoringCenter|ProfessionalResources|Meetings/Conferences|OnlineCommunities|Recognition/Awards|AboutUs|Home
AACEInternationalCopyright2016|PrivacyPolicy|WebsitePrinciples
+1.304.296.8444|ContactUs

ABOU T SSLCE RT IF ICAT E S

http://www.aacei.org/am/2015/CDR.shtml

2/2