8.4 Concurrency, Pacing, and Float: Technical Analysis Before Entitlement

8.4 Concurrency, Pacing, and Float: Technical Analysis Before Entitlement

Concurrent delay is one of the most contested subjects in schedule analysis because the term is used differently. A defensible analysis defines its test before applying it. At minimum, distinguish simple calendar overlap from independent delays that each affect controlling work and would each delay the relevant milestone during the same material period.

A technical concurrency test

For each alleged delay:

1. identify the event and responsible risk under review;
2. validate its dates and affected activities;
3. determine the controlling path during the period;
4. test whether the event independently delayed the same protected completion or milestone;
5. measure the overlap using a stated time granularity; and
6. examine mitigation, pacing, and subsequent path changes.

Two events occurring in the same month are not necessarily concurrent. One may affect a noncritical path with ample float, or one may begin only after the other has already established the completion delay. Conversely, two independent paths can both control a milestone even when their activities differ.

Contract and law remain separate

The schedule finding “both events independently controlled completion for ten overlapping days” does not dictate a universal remedy. Some contracts define concurrent delay, allocate float, or specify treatment of excusable events. Applicable law and forum can also change the result. AACE Recommended Practices provide technical guidance but do not create a single common-law outcome for every project.

Pacing

Pacing occurs when a party deliberately slows its work in response to a separate delay that already controls completion. A credible pacing explanation usually needs evidence that:

• the other delay existed and controlled the relevant work;
• the paced party knew of it contemporaneously;
• the paced party had the resources and ability to proceed faster;
• slowing was a deliberate management decision rather than independent underperformance; and
• the decision and later remobilization are supported by records.

Without these facts, “pacing” can become a retrospective label for an unrelated delay. The analysis should test whether the paced work would have become controlling under the counterfactual sequence.

Float ownership and use

Total float is a calculated characteristic of the schedule model. Who may consume it, whether it is shared, and whether one party must protect it are contract questions. “Project float on a first-come, first-served basis” is a common drafting concept, not an AACE rule that overrides all contracts.

When reporting float use, state the technical result: “The approval event consumed 12 of 22 calculated days of total float and did not move the tested completion milestone at that update.” Then cite the governing clause before assigning entitlement.

Example

An owner event affects Path A for 20 days. A contractor event affects Path B for the same dates. The analyst should not immediately declare twenty days of excusable non-compensable delay. First test whether both paths controlled completion, whether either had float, whether the events were independent, and how the contract treats concurrency. If both independently controlled the same milestone for the same twenty days, the report can state that technical concurrency is present under the defined test. The remedy remains a separate contractual conclusion.

Reporting language

Prefer:

• “The two events overlap for 12 days and each independently controls the milestone under the stated longest-path test.”
• “The contract’s concurrency and notice clauses require commercial or legal review.”
• “The pacing assertion is not supported by contemporaneous resource records.”

Avoid:

• “Standard common law always grants time but no money.”
• “AACE says float always belongs to the project.”
• “Calendar overlap alone proves concurrency.”

Precise boundaries strengthen the scheduler’s credibility and help the decision-maker apply the proper contract and law.

Applied review: analyze interaction before labeling it

Concurrent delay definitions vary by contract and jurisdiction. A technical review should identify the relevant period, the paths controlling the same contractual milestone, the timing and duration of each event, and whether each event independently affected completion. Simply finding two late activities in the same month does not establish concurrency. Analyze the network and contemporaneous facts before applying a label.

Pacing occurs when a party changes the timing or intensity of its work in response to another apparent delay. Whether pacing is reasonable or has contractual consequence depends on notice, knowledge, intent, contemporaneous conditions, and governing rules. Likewise, float ownership and consumption depend on contract language and applicable law; “first come, first served” is not a universal entitlement rule.

Document calculated float, path changes, decisions, and records without turning a schedule convention into a legal conclusion. Test alternative interpretations when evidence is uncertain. A careful exam answer distinguishes what the schedule demonstrates from what the contract administrator, expert, tribunal, or court must decide.