- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
- within Compliance and Insurance topic(s)
Introduction
Anamaria Popescu, forensic schedule analysis expert at Ankura, recently shared pivotal insights at the 11th International Society of Construction Law Conference in Seoul, Korea focused on harmonizing two key frameworks — SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol 2nd Edition (SCL D&D2) and AACE International's Recommended Practice 29R-03 (29R-03) — to enhance forensic delay analysis.
SCL D&D2 and 29R-03 are both internationally recognized frameworks that guide experts in evaluating delay claims and conducting delay analysis in construction disputes — especially in international arbitration. SCL D&D2 offers a principled framework for managing delay and disruption claims and emphasizes the importance of contemporaneous records, critical path analysis, and transparent methodologies, while 29R-03 provides a detailed, technical roadmap for executing forensic schedule analyses with a structured taxonomy of methodologies tailored to varying project complexities and data availability.
Despite their widespread adoption, some practitioners have expressed concerns that SCL D&D2 and 29R-03 present conflicting approaches, potentially complicating their application in complex delay and disruption claims. However, by integrating the strategic oversight of SCL D&D2 with the technical precision of 29R-03, party-appointed experts can develop robust, defensible delay analyses that withstand scrutiny in arbitration.
Essential Insights
- Synergistic Protocols: SCL D&D2 and 29R-03, though distinct, complement each other to fortify forensic analysis. SCL D&D2 sets the strategic stage, emphasizing clear documentation and critical path analysis, while 29R-03 delivers the technical rigor needed for detailed execution.
- Empowering Experts: The combined application of these frameworks allows experts to craft analyses that are not only robust and defensible but also resonate with arbitration standards.
- Balanced Methodologies: The protocols cover a spectrum of methodologies, providing both a broad overview and deep technical execution strategies to address diverse project challenges.
- Objectivity in Arbitration: Emphasizing clear, logic-driven analysis, these frameworks align with arbitration needs, ensuring clarity and technical soundness in expert findings.
Conclusion
Anamaria's findings clearly define a path forward for enhanced credibility and efficacy in applying both protocols to enhance and strengthen the credibility of a delay expert's findings in international arbitration proceedings. The SCL D&D2 Protocol and AACE's 29R-03 are synergistic, and when applied thoughtfully, they empower independent experts to fulfill their duties to the tribunal with rigor and integrity. For a more comprehensive understanding of these frameworks, access the full paper [link to full paper to be published on Ankura website, more to come on this]
This article was first published with SCL International [https://www.sclinternational.org/papers].
Read the full paper here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
