Referencing AACE + others in claims documents [proper practice]

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.

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