AACE CFCC Certified Forensic Claims Consultant common mistakes
AACE CFCC Certified Forensic Claims Consultant · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Computing delay days from the as-planned versus as-built schedule end-date difference alone and reporting that as the compensable delay, without isolating the employer-risk events.
The window or time-impact analysis steps are learned mechanically, so candidates jump to the total slippage figure because it is the easiest number to extract from the schedule.
What to do instead
Before writing any number, list each delay event, assign responsibility (employer, contractor, neutral/concurrent), and only then quantify the compensable portion using the contemporaneous windows. Show the arithmetic for each window, not just the total.
Treating concurrent delay as automatically barring all time and money relief, rather than separating the two remedies.
The shorthand 'concurrent delay defeats the claim' is widely repeated, and candidates collapse the time extension and the cost recovery into one test.
What to do instead
State the two-part rule explicitly: concurrent employer and contractor delay generally supports an extension of time but not prolongation cost, and note that the governing contract and jurisdiction can modify this. Apply it event by event.
Presenting a claim narrative built on hindsight reconstruction instead of contemporaneous records, then being unable to trace each cost to a source document.
Records are often incomplete, and candidates write the story first and look for supporting documents afterward, which produces an unsupportable forensic opinion.
What to do instead
Build the chronology only from dated contemporaneous evidence (daily reports, correspondence, meeting minutes, payment records). For any gap, disclose it and explain the inference rather than filling it with assumption.
Claiming extended home-office overhead using a percentage markup or a formula without demonstrating the actual additional cost caused by the delay.
Formula methods such as Eichleay or Hudson are memorized as recipes, so candidates apply them without checking the preconditions the method requires.
What to do instead
Identify the method, verify its preconditions against the facts (for example, whether the contractor's home office was actually idle or the contract specifies a fixed rate), and tie the resulting figure to the delay period and causation.
Conflating disruption and lost productivity with delay, adding a productivity-loss claim on top of the prolongation claim without checking for double counting.
Both are measured in dollars and often arise from the same events, so candidates present them as separate heads of claim without a reconciliation.
What to do instead
Map each cost head to a distinct causal event and time period, then build a reconciliation table showing no cost is claimed twice. State which events drive delay and which drive disruption.
Ignoring the contract's notice, time-bar, and condition-precedent clauses until the merits analysis is finished.
Candidates focus on the technical schedule and cost analysis, which is the visible exam content, and treat procedural compliance as a formality.
What to do instead
Start every claim review with a clause-by-clause checklist: notice period, form of notice, records obligations, and time-bar consequences. State whether each was met and how a missed notice affects entitlement.
Offering a schedule analysis that uses a baseline program never accepted by the employer, or one that was updated inconsistently, without stating the limitation.
The as-planned schedule is assumed to be the correct reference, and candidates do not verify acceptance, version, or update history.
What to do instead
Identify the accepted baseline by date and version, document the update method (and any departures from it), and state explicitly how the choice of baseline affects the delay result.
Describing the dispute-resolution ladder in the wrong order or omitting a mandatory step such as engineer's determination, DAB/DB, or a contractual cooling-off period.
Candidates rely on general knowledge of mediation, arbitration, and litigation and skip the project-specific tiered clauses that precede them.
What to do instead
Read the dispute clause and reproduce its sequence exactly, naming each step, its time limit, and its binding or non-binding effect. Note the consequence of skipping a step.
Writing an expert report that mixes the role of advocate and independent expert, arguing the client's case rather than giving a reasoned opinion.
The expert is retained by one party and, under time pressure, adopts the client's narrative instead of testing it.
What to do instead
Separate facts, assumptions, methodology, and opinion into distinct sections. State the instructions received, the documents relied on, and any matters that undermine the opinion. Qualify conclusions to the limits of the evidence.
Asserting a cost figure with no stated basis of estimate, no price-level date, and no treatment of betterment, mitigation, or credits owed to the employer.
Candidates total invoices and add a percentage for overhead, then present the result as damages without documenting the build-up.
What to do instead
Provide a cost build-up by category with source references and a stated price base date. Address mitigation steps taken, betterment, and any offsets or credits, and present a net rather than gross figure.