Getting to Zero: Solutions for When Different Schedule Analyses Give Different Answers

  • Navigant 1200 19th St NW #700 Washington, DC 20036

Perceived wisdom within the construction industry is that different Forensic Schedule Analysis (FSA) methods produce different results on the same set of facts. Although there are many potential variables that could cause this, such as bias of the analyst or the quality of the implementation of a method, some experts have expressed concern that the methods themselves generate different results, and therefore some may be potentially defective. But, do the different methods actually generate different answers when applied properly to the same set of facts, or are the observed differences natural aspects of the methods that can be documented and quantified? This presentation will explore that question by examining a specific set of facts and applying each of the four major FSA methods – the As-Planned vs. As-Built, Contemporaneous Period Analysis, Retrospective TIA, and Collapsed As-Built – to those facts. Further, if the methods do generate different results, the presentation will explain how and why that occurs, how to quantify and reconcile the differences, and what conclusions a FSA expert should draw from those differences.

About the Presenter

Patrick Kelly is an Associate Director in Navigant’s Global Construction Practice. He provides services in construction management, contracting, project controls, scheduling, Earned Value analysis, Forensic Schedule Analysis for delay and disruption, and Claims & Disputes Resolution. He has extensive experience in transportation, facilities, and critical structures assignments. He worked for both contractors and owners in small and large construction projects at the federal, state, and local level. Patrick provides Forensic Schedule Analysis, expert witness testimony, and litigation support to owners, contractors, and attorneys, on construction methods, cost analysis, and delay/disruption issues. Patrick has also written and published many articles on scheduling and Forensic Schedule Analysis, and provided training on both software and CPM methodology to schedulers, analysts, and construction professionals. Within AACE, he is currently holds the chair of the Claims and Disputes Resolution Technical Subcommittee, and is the incoming Director, Region 2.