Comparing Institutional Frameworks for Forensic Schedule Delay Analysis: The SCL DDP2, AACE RP 29R-03, and ASCE 67-17

Abstract Forensic schedule delay analysis plays a central role in construction dispute resolution, yet practitioners frequently rely on multiple institutional authorities that differ in scope, structure, and analytical emphasis. This paper examines how three widely cited authorities—the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol, second edition (SCL DDP2), AACE International Recommended Practice (RP) 29R-03, and ASCE 67-17—conceptualize and guide forensic schedule delay analysis. The study employs a comparative doctrinal and standards-based analysis. It reviews and synthesizes the treatment of delay methodologies, critical path identification, float ownership, concurrent delay, and evidentiary reliability across the three authorities, with emphasis on their implications for expert testimony and dispute resolution. The analysis demonstrates that the three authorities converge on foundational principles, including the dynamic nature of the critical path and the primacy of contemporaneous schedule records. At the same time, they diverge in institutional purpose and analytical emphasis: ASCE 67-17 functions primarily as a consensus-based professional standard, AACE RP 29R-03 provides a structured technical taxonomy of forensic delay methodologies, and the SCL protocol situates delay analysis within a contractual and entitlement framework.