Website Upgrade Incoming - we're working on a new look (and speed!) standby while we deliver the project

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

Referencing AACE + others in claims documents [proper practice]

2 replies [Last post]
Sun, 2012-02-26 12:18
Aidan Kelly
User offline. Last seen 12 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 5 May 2011
Posts: 24
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

Hi All

In the case of claim documents EOT/disruption etc is it acceptable, good practice or advisable to refer to standards such as AACE 29R-03, SCL protocol or any other industry documents when compiling a claim?

I understand there are no standards or legislation in claims but does referring to some of these docs, especially say 29R-03, add any credibility to the document?

Or is it best to stay clear of any referencing and keep the water merky?

Appreciate all input.

Aidan

 

 

Top

Replies

Sun, 2012-02-26 14:43
#1
Aidan Kelly
User offline. Last seen 12 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 5 May 2011
Posts: 24
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas

Thanks Rafael,

I rememeber your forum on this and would agree that any procedure should not place preference on a particular software pubilsher. 

I think for our case referencing credible material will be helpful, it will not likely go to court as we have a good history with the client and it will probably be resovled over a cup of coffee. But documentation must be good enough to get it to that level 1st.

Thanks for you advice. 

Regards

Aidan 

 

 

 

Top
Sun, 2012-02-26 13:06
#2
Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 5241
Groups: Spider Project Team

I consider AACE 29R-03 2011 one of the best references available. It is a reference I questioned before with all my bullets and all significant issues dissapeared with the 2011 update, it is a mature reference.

For your information my significant issues were two. An issue about who owns the float and an issue about their continuous mentioning of Primavera as if a preference on this software when there are other good options. In their 2011 edition this was modified to what I consider an excellent solution. For a rare ocassion I am swimming with the current.

I believe courts will look for well documented procedures and will make it esier for them to accept these rather than those of your own. Most books on scheduling will fall short somewhere in comparison to this document but can be used to substantiate variations the reference recognizes can be acceptable. Leave the options open to use not a single reference but to use additional if need be.

Forensic modeling is not the same as CPM modeling on the go, these people have done a compilation of years of experience by many experts involved in the issue of forensic claims.

The person who make the claim has the burden of proof and can choose his references but the other side can make use of their own references to question yours (can be AACE 29R-03), it is your choice, make it a good one.

Top