AACE CFCC Certified Forensic Claims Consultant cheat sheet

Forensic claims consulting applies engineering, scheduling, and cost-analysis methods to reconstruct causation, liability, and quantum of a disputed claim.

Forensic schedule analysis compares as-planned, as-built, and impacted schedules; baseline must be the contemporaneous approved schedule, not a hindsight reconstruction.

Delay = time impact on completion; disruption = lost productivity without necessarily extending completion; the two are quantified by different methods.

Critical path method (CPM) logic governs entitlement: only delay affecting the controlling critical path yields time entitlement; near-critical float consumption is measured, not assumed.

Concurrent delay exists when two or more independent critical delays overlap; under most common-law standards neither party recovers time-related costs for the concurrent period.

Total cost method is disfavored; it requires (a) impracticability of a better method, (b) reasonableness of bid, (c) reasonableness of actual cost, and (d) absence of owner-caused or contractor-caused fault.

Measured-mile or modified total cost isolates owner-caused inefficiency by comparing bid productivity to actual, then excluding contractor-responsible variance.

Forensic cost analysis distinguishes direct cost, indirect/time-related cost, escalation, and profit; each is proven separately with contemporaneous records.

Documentation hierarchy for reliability: contemporaneous daily records and cost ledgers > periodic reports > after-the-fact reconstructions > opinion testimony.

A claim requires a causal link: entitlement (contract/legal basis) + liability (responsibility) + causation (delay/disruption) + quantum (cost/time), each independently proven.

Notice and claim-preservation clauses are conditions precedent in many contracts; failure to give timely written notice can bar an otherwise valid claim regardless of merit.

Time-bar and notice provisions are strictly construed; the clock typically runs from the date the claimant knew or should have known of the event.

Change order vs. constructive change: a constructive change arises when the owner's conduct (e.g., defective specifications, overzealous inspection) forces work outside the contract without a formal directive.

Differing site conditions are commonly bifurcated into Type I (differing from contract documents) and Type II (differing from what a reasonable site investigation would reveal); notice timing differs.

Dispute resolution ladder typically escalates: negotiation → mediation → neutral evaluation/adjudication → arbitration or litigation; each step has its own limitation and cost profile.

Arbitration awards are generally final and subject to very limited judicial review (fraud, misconduct, exceeding authority); appeals on the merits are rarely available.

Suspension of work and termination for convenience entitle the contractor to costs incurred plus reasonable profit on work done, but not anticipatory lost profit on unperformed work.

Burden of proof rests on the claimant; quantum must be proven with reasonable certainty, and speculative or unsubstantiated costs are disallowed.