Construction Disputes and Delay Analysis Methods under Scrutiny

A recent LinkedIn article by Stephen Warhoe argues that compliance with AACE International guidance does not automatically make a delay analysis dependable or persuasive in disputes. Reporting on industry practice, the piece highlights how opposing experts frequently reach different conclusions not because of differing facts, but because they apply different analytical methodologies.

Central to the discussion is AACE Recommended Practice 29R-03, which provides a framework for forensic schedule analysis but deliberately avoids prescribing a single “correct” method. Instead, the article stresses that the credibility of any analysis depends on whether the chosen method fits the project’s data, purpose, and evidentiary context, rather than simply ticking a compliance box.

The article further reports that method selection is driven by the quality of project records, contractual requirements, and the forum in which disputes are resolved. Techniques such as as-planned vs as-built comparisons, time impact analysis, and collapsed as-built models each have strengths and limitations, particularly when dealing with issues like concurrency or incomplete data. Crucially, the author emphasises transparency, clear assumptions, and alignment with contractual obligations as key to defensibility.

The overall message is that “AACE-compliant” analysis can still be flawed if misapplied; credibility in construction claims stems from selecting a method that is evidence-based, clearly explained, and appropriate to the specific circumstances of the project.

Link to the article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-aace-compliant-delay-analysis-anything-stephen-aaobc/