The dynamics of float, logic, resource allocation, and delay timing in forensic schedule analysis and construction delay claims

The Dynamics of Float, Logic, Resource Allocation, and Delay Timing in Forensic Schedule Analysis and Construction Delay Claims By Long Duy Nguyen KY SU (Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology, Vietnam) 1999 M.ENG (Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand) 2003 M.S (University of California, Berkeley) 2005 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering-Civil and Environmental Engineering in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor C William Ibbs, Chair Professor Glenn Ballard Professor Frederick Collignon Professor Arpad Horvath Fall 2007 The dissertation of Long Duy Nguyen is approved: Chair Date _ Date _ Date _ Date _ University of California, Berkeley Fall 2007 The Dynamics of Float, Logic, Resource Allocation, and Delay Timing in Forensic Schedule Analysis and Construction Delay Claims Copyright 2007 by Long Duy Nguyen Abstract The Dynamics of Float, Logic, Resource Allocation, and Delay Timing in Forensic Schedule Analysis and Construction Delay Claims By Long Duy Nguyen Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering-Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley Professor C William Ibbs, Chair Delay claims in construction projects present various tough and controversial issues How to prove the three elements, namely entitlement, causation, and quantum in the “triad of proof” is an onerous task The analyses of schedule delays and their associated damages especially concern claims analysts, project parties, courts, Boards of Contract Appeals, and so forth On the one hand, the industry has employed various forensic schedule analysis techniques to support delay claims Paradoxically, schedule-related factors such as float, logic, and resource allocation are frequently ignored even though they can affect project completion time and delay responsibility, too On the other hand, the current “one-size-fits-all” methods for calculating financial consequences undermine the relative importance of delayed activities and the fluctuating nature of overhead levels The effects of the context of a delay in terms of the timing of the delay and degree of suspension should be therefore paid attention in quantifying delay damages Accordingly, this research develops novel techniques for analyzing causation and calculating damages in construction delay claims They address the dynamics of float, logic, resource allocation and the delay context in forensic schedule analysis and delay claims Several published and hypothesized case studies are used to illustrate their applications Among other things, this research proposes: (1) an enhanced window analysis technique considering resource allocation; (2) an activity-specific overhead allocation process (ASAP) for quantifying field-overhead damages; (3) FLORA as a novel forensic schedule analysis technique that can capture the dynamics of float, logic, and resource allocation; and (4) a framework which integrates FLORA and ASAP for analyzing schedule delays and their field overhead damages in a real-time and interactive manner Through the applications, comparisons, and evaluations in case studies, these developments really overcome various limitations of the available techniques and practices currently used in forensic scheduling and delay claims This research recommends that the schedule-related factors should be captured in forensic schedule analysis In addition, the quantification of delay damages should emphasize the context of a delay This also enables equitable apportionments when concurrent delays occur ASAP and FLORA developed in this research are able to tackle these issues Professor C William Ibbs Dissertation Committee Chair To my Mom and Dad guyen Thi goc Lan and guyen Van Quy Kính Tặng Ba Mẹ guyễn Văn Quy guyễn Thị gọc Lan i Table of Content Table of Content ii List of Figures ix List of Tables xi Acknowledgements xii Abbreviations xiv Symbols xvi Chapter Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 The Need for Research 1.3 Problem Statement 1.4 Research Objectives 1.5 Scope of Work 1.6 The Structure of the Dissertation Chapter 11 Literature Review 11 2.1 Scheduling Practices in Delay Claims 11 2.1.1 Types of Schedules 12 2.1.2 The Use of the Critical Path Method 13 2.2 Roles of Project Change in Delays and Disruptions 14 2.2.1 The Concept of Project Change 14 ii 2.2.2 The Extent of Project Change 15 2.3 Delay, Disruption, Acceleration, and Delay Concurrency 16 2.3.1 Delay, Disruption, and Acceleration 16 2.3.1.1 Delays 16 2.3.1.2 Delay versus Disruption 17 2.3.1.3 Delay versus Acceleration 19 2.3.2 Causes and Costs of Delays 22 2.3.3 The Types of Delays 23 2.3.4 Concurrent Delays 25 2.3.4.1 The Concept of Concurrent Delays 26 2.3.4.2 Conditions for Occurrence of Concurrency 27 2.3.4.3 Apportionment of Concurrent Delays 28 2.4 Float and Criticality in Project Schedules 32 2.4.1 Float 32 2.4.2 Float versus Criticality 33 2.4.3 Float Ownership 34 2.4.4 Alternatives to Float Distribution and Management 35 2.5 Process of Forensic Schedule Analysis 37 2.6 Forensic Schedule Analysis Techniques 39 2.6.1 Global Impact Method 41 2.6.2 As-Planned vs As-Built Method 41 2.6.3 Impacted As-Planned Method 42 2.6.4 Collapsed As-Built Method 43 iii 2.6.5 Schedule Window Analysis 44 2.6.6 Time Impact Analysis 45 2.6.7 Other Schedule Analysis Techniques 46 2.6.8 Criticism of Available Schedule Analysis Techniques 48 2.7 Delay Damages and Commonly Applied Methodologies 49 2.7.1 Overview of Delay Damages 49 2.7.2 Owner’s Delay Damages 50 2.7.3 Contractor’s Delay Damages 51 2.7.3.1 Types of Recoverable Damages 51 2.7.3.2 Equitable Adjustments 52 2.7.3.3 Field Overhead Damages 52 2.7.3.4 Extended HOOH versus Unabsorbed HOOH 54 2.7.3.5 Methodologies for Calculating HOOH Damages 55 2.8 Summary of the Literature Review 62 Chapter 63 Research Methodology 63 3.1 Research Framework 63 3.2 Bases, Tools, and Techniques 66 3.2.1 Current Forensic Schedule Analysis Techniques 66 3.2.2 CPM, Linked Bar Charts, and Resource-Constrained Scheduling 67 3.2.3 Scheduling Software Packages 67 3.2.4 Project Overhead Allocation 67 3.2.5 Research Evaluation 70 iv 3.3 Data Sources 71 Chapter 72 Impacts of Resource Allocation on Forensic Schedule Analysis 72 4.1 Introduction 72 4.2 Motivating Case 73 4.3 Window Analysis under the Effect of Resource Allocation 75 4.4 Case Study 78 4.4.1 Case Overview 78 4.4.2 Analysis of Delays 79 4.5 Discussion 84 4.5.1 Possible Extended Effect of Delays 84 4.5.2 Positive/Negative Effect of Resource Allocation on Delay Responsibility 85 4.5.3 Legal Acceptability 85 4.5.4 Implications of Applying the Enhanced Window Analysis 86 Chapter 89 Delay Damages and Schedule Window Analysis 89 5.1 Introduction 89 5.1.1 Delay Context versus Delay Responsibility 90 5.1.2 Field Overhead Damages 94 5.2 An Integrated Approach 95 5.3 Hypothetical Case Study 98 5.4 Discussion 104 5.4.1 Estimated FOH versus Actual FOH 104 v Fermont Division, Dynamics Corporation of America, ASBCA No 15806, 75-1 BCA ¶11,319 (1978) Finke, M R (1998) “A better way to estimate and mitigate disruption.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 124(6), 490-497 Finke, M R (1999) “Window analyses of compensable delays.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 125(2), 96-100 Finke, M R (2000) “Schedule density as a tool for pricing compensable float consumption.” Cost Engineering, AACE, 42(6), 34-37 Fondahl, J W (1991) “The development of the construction engineer: past progress and future problems.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 117(3), 380–392 Fred R Comb Company v United States, 103 Ct Cl 174 at 183 (1945) Fredlund, D J., Brown, R B., and DeLessio, F (2003) “Business interruption claims – delay analysis considerations.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.05.1-6 Frost, D (2002) “CPM scheduling in resolving delay claims – the big picture.” Construction Law and Business, 2(6), 1-2 Galloway, P D and Nielsen, K R (1990) “Concurrent schedule delay in international contracts.” The International Construction Law Review, 7(4), 386-401 Galloway, P D., Neilsen, K R., and Ramey, M C (1997) “Delay: use of CPM schedules for concurrency, allocation, proof, and window analysis.” Hurry Up and Slow Down: Dealing with Delays in Construction Projects American Bar Association, Chicago, IL 160 Gavin, D G (2001) Disruption Claims: Proving and Pricing Construction Claims, 3rd Edition, Aspen Law & Business Gong, D (1997) “Optimization of float use in risk analysis-based network scheduling.” International Journal of Project Management, 15(3), 187-192 Hanks, D R (1999) “Soft logic – an overview.” Cost Engineering, AACEI, 41(2), 3739 Hanna, A S., Russell, J S., Gotzion, T W., and Nordheim, E V (1999) “Impact of change orders on labor efficiency for mechanical construction.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 125(3), 176-184 Hanna, A S., Lotfallah, W B., and Lee, M J (2002) “Statistical-fuzzy approach to quantify cumulative impact of change orders.” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering., ASCE, 16(4), 252-258 Harmelink, D J (2001) “Linear scheduling model: float characteristics.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 127(4), 255-260 Harris, J W and Ainsworth, A (2003) “Practical analyses in proving damages.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.04.1-10 Hegazy, T (1999) “Optimization of resource allocation and leveling using genetic algorithms.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 125(3), 167–175 Hegazy, T and Zhang, K (2005) “Daily windows delay analysis.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(5), 505–512 161 Hester, W T., Kuprenas, J., and Chang, T C (1991) “Construction changes and change orders.” Source Document 66, Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas, Austin, TX Holland, N L and Hobson, D (1999) “Indirect cost categorization and allocation by construction contractors.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 5(2), 49-56 Holloway, S (2002) “Introductory concepts in delay claims.” Construction Law and Business, 2(6), 3-6 Hosie, J (1994) “The assessment of damages for delay in construction contracts: liquidated and unliquidated damages.” Construction Law Journal, 10, 214-224 Householder, J L and Rutland, H E (1990) “Who owns floats?” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 116(1), 130-133 Hughes, F J and Ulwelling, J K (1992) ““True concurrent delays” and a proposed rule of law for apportioning damages for delay arising therefrom.” Francis J Hughes, 33p Hughes, T R (2003a) “A layperson's guide to delay claims, part I.” Masonry Magazine, 42(10), 2003 Hughes, T R (2003b) “A layperson's guide to delay claims, part II.” Masonry Magazine, 42(12), 2003 Ibbs, C W (1997) “Quantitative impacts of project change: size issues.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 123(3), 308-311 Ibbs, W (2005) “Impact of change’s timing on labor productivity.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(11), 1219-1229 162 Ibbs, C W., and Allen, W E (1995) “Quantitative impacts of project change.’’ Source Document 108, Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Ibbs, W and Nguyen, L D (2007a) “Schedule analysis under the effect of resource allocation.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 133(2), 131–138 Ibbs, W and Nguyen, L D (2007b) “Alternative for quantifying field-overhead damages.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 133(10), 736-742 James, D W (1991) “Concurrency and apportioning liability and damages in public contract adjudications.” Public Contract Law Journal, 20(4), 490-531 Jensen, D., Murphy, J D., and Craig, J (1997) “The seven legal elements necessary for a successful claim for a constructive acceleration.” Project Management Journal, PMI, 28(1), 32-44 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) (2001) “Review of construction costs and time schedules for Virginia highway projects.” House Document o 31, Commonwealth of Virginia Jones, R M (2001) “Lost productivity: claims for cumulative impact of multiple change orders.” Public Contract Law Journal, 31(1), 1-46 Kartam, S (1999) “Generic methodology for analyzing delay claims.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 125(6), 409-419 Kasen, B E and Oblas, V C (1996) “Thinking ahead with forward pricing.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 12(2), 12-16 163 Kauffman, M W and Holman, C A (1995) “The Eichleay formula: a resilient means for recovering unabsorbed overhead.” Public Contract Law Journal, 24(2), 319-341 Keco Industries, Inc., ASBCA 8900, 1963 BCA ¶3891 (1963) Kelleher, T J (2005) Smith, Currie & Hancock’s Common Sense Construction Law: A Practical Guide for the Construction Professional (Ed.) John Wiley & Sons, 3rd Edition, Hoboken, NJ Kenyon, H N (1996) “Fixed cost and contract delay.” The ational Contract Management Journal, NCMA, 27(2) Kenyon, H N (1999) “Unabsorbed overhead: abandon Eichleay.” The ash & Cibinic Report, 13(6), Federal Publications – A West Group Company Kim, K and de la Garza, J M (2003) “Phantom float.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 129(5), 507-517 Kim, K and de la Garza, J M (2005) “Evaluation of the resource-constrained critical path method algorithms.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(5), 522-532 Kim, Y., Kim, K., and Shin, D (2005) “Delay analysis method using delay section.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(11), 1155-1164 Koehn, E., Young, R., Kuchar, J., and Seling, F (1978) “Cost of delays in construction.” Journal of the Construction Division, 104(3), 323-331 Kraiem, Z M and Diekmann, J E (1987) “Concurrent delays in construction projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 113(4), 591-602 Kutil, P M and Martin, M F (1995) “Constructive acceleration.” Construction Briefings, 95-13 164 Kutil, P M and Ness, A D (1997) “Concurrent delay: the challenge to unravel competing causes of delay.” The Construction Lawyer, 17(4), 18-25 Lamb Engineering and Construction Company, EBCA No C-9304172, 97-2 BCA ¶ 29207 (1997) Lankenau, M J (2003) “Owner caused delay – field overhead damages.” Cost Engineering, AACE, 45(9), 13-17 Leary, C and Bramble, B (1988) “Schedule analysis models and techniques.” Symposium of Project Management Institute, California, 63-69 Lee, J S (2003) “Construction delay analysis method.” AACE International Transactions, PS.14.1-6 Lee, H S., Ryu, H G., Yu, J H., and Kim, J J (2005) “Method for calculating schedule delay considering lost productivity.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(11), 1147-1154 Leonard, C.A (1987) “The effect of change orders on productivity.” Revay Report, 6(2), 1-4 Lesser, S B and Wallach, D L (2003) “Risky business: the ‘active interference’ exception to no-damage-for-delay clauses.” The Construction Lawyer, ABA Publishing, 23(4), 26-31 & 46-47 Love, M K (2000) “Theoretical delay and overhead damages.” Public Contract Law Journal, 30(1), 33-64 Lovejoy, V A (2004) “Claims schedule development and analysis: collapsed as-built scheduling for beginners.” Cost Engineering, AACE, 46(1), 27-30 165 Livengood, J C and Bryant, C R (2004) “Calculating imaginary numbers: time quantification in acceleration.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.09.1-8 Lubka, L P (2005) “Forget Eichleay – extended home office overhead in recoverable in California.” October 2005 Seminars/Events, Hunt, Ortmann, Blasco, Palffy & Rossell, Inc., Accessed: http://www.hobpr.com/seminars/Eichleay.pdf, January 11, 2006 at 12:00pm Majid, M Z A and McCaffer, R (1998) “Factors of non-excusable delays that influence contractors’ performance.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 14(3), 42-49 Mbabazi, A., Hegazy, T., and Saccomanno, F (2005) “Modified but-for method for delay analysis.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(10), 1142-1144 McCormick, C R (2003) “Make liquidated damages work.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.15.1-7 McCullough, R B (1999) “CPM schedules in construction claims from the contractor’s perspective.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.02.1-4 Merriam-Webster (2007) Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Accessed: http://www.mw.com/, September 5, 2007 at 9:10pm Mohan, S B and Al-Gahtani, K S (2006) “Current delay analysis techniques and improvements.” Cost Engineering, AACEI, 48(9), 12-21 Nash, R C (1989) Government Contract Changes, Federal Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C 166 National Cooperative Highway Research Program – NCHRP (2003) “Compensation for Contractor’s Home Office Overhead: A Synthesis of Highway Practice.” CHRP Synthesis 315, Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, Washington, D.C Ness, A D (2000) “When the going gets tough – analyzing concurrent delays.” Construction Weblinks, Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, Accessed: http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports Newsletters/Ap ril_17_2000/april_2000_delays_article.html, Date December 12, 2005, 11:30pm Niesse, D P (2004) “Determining after-the-fact time-related damages caused by changes.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 130(1), 46-49 Ng, S T., Skitmore, M., Deng, M Z M., and Nadeem, A (2004) “Improving existing delay analysis techniques for the establishment of delay liabilities.” Construction Innovation, 4(1), 3-17 Nguyen, L D and Ibbs, W (2006) “Delay analysis considering resource allocation.” In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Australasian Universities Building Educators Association (AUBEA), July 12-14, 2006, Sydney, Australia O’Brien, J J and Plotnick, F L (2006) CPM in Construction Management, 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill Oles, D S (1997) “The inexact science of delay analysis.” The Construction Lawyer 17(4), Oles, D S (1998) “How much are the damages.” The Construction Lawyer, 18(2), 3-4 167 Orczyk, J J (2002) “Skills and knowledge of cost engineering: change management.” AACE International's 46th Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon, June 2002 Ottesen, J L and Dignum, J L (2003) “Alternative estimation of home office overhead.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.09.1-6 Overcash, A L and Harris, J W (2005) “Measuring the contractor’s damages by “actual costs” – can it be done?” The Construction Lawyer, 25(4), 31-39 Oxford (2007), Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Accessed: http://www.oup.com/elt/oald/, September 5, 2007 at 9:10pm Peterman, G G (1979) “Who owns float?” Cost Engineering, AACE, 21(2), 55-57 Peters, T F (2003) “Dissecting the doctrine of concurrent delay.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.01.1-8 Peters, T F (2004) “Constructive acceleration: waking the sleeping giant.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.03.1-8 Pasiphol, S and Popescu, C (1994) “Qualitative criteria combination for total float distribution.” AACE Transactions, DCL.3.1-6 Pasiphol, S and Popescu, C (1995) “Total float management in CPM project scheduling.” AACE Transactions, C&SM/C.5.1-5 Peterman, G G (1979) “Who owns float?” Cost Engineering, AACEI, 21(2), 55-57 Pinnell, S S (1992) “Construction scheduling disputes: proving entitlement.” The Construction Lawyer, 12(1), pp 18-30 Pinnell, S S (1998) How to Get Paid for Construction Changes: Preparation and Resolution Tools and Techniques, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY 168 Ponce de Leon, G (1984) “Schedule submittals: to approve or not to approve.” Strategem, 2(1) Ponce de Leon, G (1986) “Float ownership: specs treatment.” Cost Engineering, AACE, 28(10), 12-15 Ponce de Leon, G (1987) “Theories of concurrent delays.” AACE Transactions H.6.1-5 Prateapusanond, A (2003) “A comprehensive practice of total float pre-allocation and management for the application of a CPM-based construction contract.” Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, VA Raz, T and Elnathan, D (1999) “Activity-based costing for projects.” International Journal of Project Management, 17(1), 61-67 Raz, T and Marshall, B (1996) “Effect of resource constraints on float calculations in project networks.” International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 241-248 Reams, J S (1989) “Delay analysis: a systematic approach.” Cost Engineering, AACE, 31(2), 12-16 R.G Beer Corporation, ENG BCA, 4885, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,012 Revay, S O (2003) “Coping with changes.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.25.1-7 Reynolds, R B and Revay, S G (2001) “Concurrent delay: a modest proposal.” The Revay Report, 20(2), 1-10 Rishe, M (1973) “The recognition of delay, disruption and acceleration in changed work.” Public Contract Law Journal, 6, 152-165 Rouen, L and Mitchell, D J (2005) California Construction Market Analysis, Division of Construction, The California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA 169 Rubin, R A., Guy, S D., Maevis, A C., and Fairweather, V (1983) Construction Claims, Analysis, Presentation and Defense, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY Schone, J E (1985) “Delay problems in multiple-prime contractor construction contract: a management perspective.” The Construction Lawyer, 5(3), 1-4 Schumacher, L (1995) “Quantifying and apportioning delay on construction projects.” Cost Engineering, AACE, 37(2), 11-13 Schwartzkopf, W and McNamara, J J (2001) Calculating Construction Damages Aspen Law and Business, Gaithersburg, MD Scott, S and Harris, R A (2004) “United Kingdom construction claims: views of professionals.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 130(5), 734-741 Seals, R (2004) “Continuous delay measurement and the role of daily delay values.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.07.1-16 Semple, C., Hartman, F T and Jergeas, G (1994) “Construction claims and disputes: causes and cost/time overruns.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 120(4), 785-795 Sakka, Z I and El-Sayegh, S M (2007) “Float consumption impact on cost and schedule in the construction industry.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 133(2), 124-130 Shi, J J., Cheung, S O., and Arditi, D (2001) “Construction delay computation method.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 127(1), 6065 170 Singletary, N (1996) “What’s the value of earned value?” PM etwork, December, PMI, 28-30 Strogatz, I A L., Taylor, W J., and Craig, G P (1997) “Pricing the delay: whom I sue and what I get?” The Construction Lawyer, 17(4), 4-17 Stumpf, G R (2000) “Schedule delay analysis.” Cost Engineering, AACE, 42(7), 32-43 Sweet, J and Schneier, M M (2004) Legal Aspects of Architecture, Engineering, and the Construction Process, 7th Edition, Thomson-Engineering, USA Taam, T M C and Singh, A (2003) “Unabsorbed overhead and the Eichleay formula.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 129(4), 234-245 Tamimi, S and Diekmann, J (1988) “Soft logic in network analysis.” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 2(3), 289-300 Thomas, H R (2000) “Schedule acceleration, work flow, and labor productivity.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 126(4), 261-267 Thomas, H R., and Napolitan, C L (1995) “Quantitative effects of construction changes on labor productivity.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 121(3), 290-296 Thomas, H R., and Raynar, K A (1997) “Schedule overtime and labor productivity: quantitative analysis.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 123(2), 181-188 Thomas, H R and Messner, J I (2003) “No-damages-for-delay clause: evaluating contract delay risk.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 129(4), 257-262 171 Trauner, T J (1990), Construction Delays: Documenting Causes, Winning Claims, Recovering Costs, R.S Means, Kingston, MA Triple “A” South, ASBCA No 46866, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,194, at 135,523 Wang, W C (2005) “Impact of soft logic on the probabilistic duration of construction projects.” International Journal of Project Management, 23(2), 600-610 W.B Construction v Mountains Community Hospital District, Cal App unpub Lexis 5124 (2005) Wickham Contracting Company, GSBCA No 8675, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,040 (1994) Wickwire, J M and Smith, R F (1974) “The use of critical path method techniques in construction claims.” Public Contract Law Journal, 7, 1-45 Wickwire, J M., Hurlbut, S B and Lerman, L J (1989) “ Critical Path method techniques in contract claims: issues and developments, 1974 to 1988.” Public Contract Law Journal, 18, 338-391 Wickwire, J M and Ockman, S “Use of critical path method on contract claims – 2000.” The Construction Lawyer, 19(4), 12-21 Wickwire, J M., Driscoll, T J., Hurlbut, S B., and Hillman, S B (2003) Construction Scheduling: Preparation, Liability and Claims, 2nd Edition, Aspen Publishers, New York Wiest, J D (1967) “A heuristic model for scheduling large projects with limited resources.’’ Management Science, 13(6), B359–B377 Wiezel, J P (1992) “Refining the concept of concurrent delay.” Public Contract Law Journal, 21, 161-176 172 Wigal, G S (1990) “Interference with a contractor's early completion of a construction project.” The Construction Lawyer, 10(4), 17-25 William F Klingensmith, Inc v United States, 731 F.2d 805, 808-809 (1984) Willis, R J (1985) “Critical path analysis and resource constrained project scheduling – theory and practice.” European Journal of Operational Research, 21, 149-155 Wray, R W (2000) “Constructive acceleration.” Thomson FindLaw, Accessed: http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Apr/1/129764.html, December 10, 2005 at 4:20pm Wright, H W and Bedingfield, J P (1979) Government Contract Accounting, Federal Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C WRP Corp v United States,183 Ct 409 (1968) Yates, J K (1993) “Construction decision support system for delay analysis.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 119(2), 226-244 Yates, J K and Epstein, A (2006) “Avoiding and minimizing construction delay claim disputes in relational contracting.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 132(2), 168-159 Zack, J G (1986) “Check your scheduling practices.” Civil Engineering, ASCE , 28, Zack, J G (1993) ““Claimsmanship”: current perspective.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 119(3), 480-497 Zack, J G (1999) “But-for schedules – analysis and defense.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.04.1-6 Zack, J G (2000) “Pacing delays – the practical effect,” Cost Engineering, 42(7), AACE, 23-28 173 Zack, J G (2001) “Calculation and recovery of home office overhead.” AACE International Transactions, CDR.02.1-6 Zack, J G (2003) “Schedule delay analysis: is there agreement?” Presentation at PMICPM Spring Conference 2003, PMI College of Performance Management, May 7-9, New Orleans, LA Zack, J G (2006) “Delay and delay analysis: isn’t it simple?” In Proceedings of the first ICEC and IPMA Global Congress on Project Management, April 26, 2006, Ljubljana, Slovenia Zollinger, W R and Calvey, T T (2004) “Is noncritical progress critical?” AACE International Transactions, CDR.18.1-5 174 ... Abstract The Dynamics of Float, Logic, Resource Allocation, and Delay Timing in Forensic Schedule Analysis and Construction Delay Claims By Long Duy Nguyen Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering-Civil and. .. damages in construction delay claims They address the dynamics of float, logic, resource allocation and the delay context in forensic schedule analysis and delay claims Several published and hypothesized... calculating financial consequences undermine the relative importance of delayed activities and the fluctuating nature of overhead levels The effects of the context of a delay in terms of the timing of