Forensic Schedule Analysis Methods: Reconciliation of Different Results byJohn C. Livengood and Patrick M. Kelly

Abstract

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 are 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 paper 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 paper 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.