Senior Managing Consultant Lawrence Bastianelli and Director Brad Wolf will present “Project Development and Strategies for Success” at the AACE 2013 Annual Meeting on Monday, July 1, in Washington, DC.
The paper details a project delivery system that provides key strategic information for go/no-go decision gates that effectively manage the risk-to-reward relationship during project development. The first three phases of the delivery system are collectively known as front-end loading and are devoted to project development. The paper explores critical project execution strategies to mitigate risks and maintain alignment of business and project objectives. Businesses have to make important and timely decisions regarding capital investments needed to sustain a position in the market or to exploit new business opportunities. We also discuss using third-party facilitators in augmenting the owner’s project management team as a valuable component of a well-rounded implementation process. To demonstrate the success of the concept, we provide two case studies in which experts worked with industry owners to incorporate successful strategies and project controls for critical plant investment projects.
Visit the event website.
Concurrent Delay Analysis: Part 5
By: Charles Choyce
While the analytical methods of determining concurrent delay are important, a contractor should prepare contemporaneous updates during the course of the project that correctly and accurately reflect delay events as they occur. Similarly, in its review of contemporaneous updates, an owner should analyze any logic changes, insertion of delay events, and the linking of those events to ensure that they accurately reflect the events that occurred, and communicate with the contractor on these issues. Small adjustments in the schedule can result in significant changes in the delay calculations that may make a delay event compensable, concurrent, or inexcusable. Continue reading Practical Considerations in Analyzing Concurrent Delays
Concurrent Delay Analysis: Part 4
By: Charles Choyce
In the previous post, I discussed the application of the “longest path theory,” which looks at the critical path in order to determine the existence of concurrent delay. This is not the only method used to address the concurrent delay issues. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACEI) Recommended Practice also discusses the “but for” test or “zero float school” for analyzing concurrent delay.
Under the “but for” test, in our earlier example regarding the steel design delay, the owner might argue that but for the design delay, the contractor would have been 20 days late on the foundations, and thus that 20-day delay should be regarded as concurrent. Generally, the contractor who argues that his delay was not concurrent must establish that he would have completed on time in the absence of the critical path delay caused by the other party. In our example regarding the foundations and the owner steel delay, to rebut the contention of the but for argument, the contractor can contend that had there been no steel design delay, he could have added resources or done other management adjustments to avoid the 20-day delay on the foundations, but since the delay caused by the steel design was so great, it would have been futile to do so.
Continue reading Challenges in Determining Concurrent Delay (Part 2)