With origins in the 1950’s, CPM Scheduling remains the tried-and-true method for planning and managing construction projects. Yet when manipulated or mismanaged, CPM schedules become a significant source of conflict among project participants. This session examines six common CPM scheduling practices that routinely give rise to claims, disputes, and litigation. From the perspective of in-house counsel, outside counsel, and expert witnesses, the discussion will explore how these issues emerge, how they are framed in disputes, and how they can be avoided.
Key Discussion Points:
- Schedule Manipulation – Use of logic, durations, or sequencing to misrepresent progress or shift responsibility.
- Schedule Withholding– Failure to provide accurate, complete, or timely schedule information to other project participants.
- Multiple or Inconsistent Schedules – “Look-aheads”, “Owner-schedules”, and multiple or inconsistent schedules shared amongst project participants.
- Concurrency Mischaracterization – Selective or flawed analysis of the schedule to indicate or assert concurrent delay.
- Weaponization of the Schedule Through Risk Allocation – Creation or manipulation of a schedule to transfer risk or liability to other project participants.
- Contemporaneous and Forensic Analyses – Reliance on incomplete contemporaneous updates or forensic reconstructions that distort logic and manipulate responsibility in disputes.
