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

AACE Planning and Scheduling Professional PSP

Track your progress as you read

Finished sections get a check mark.

1 Chapter 0: Introduction & AACE PSP Exam Structure

0.1 Current AACE PSP Exam, Eligibility, and Certification Facts 0.2 Planning and Scheduling Professional Roles and Competencies 0.3 Cost Engineering and Scheduling Terminology per RP 10S-90

2 Chapter 1: Scope Definition & Planning Fundamentals

1.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Architecture & RP 33R-15 1.2 Organization & Resource Breakdown Structures (OBS, RBS, RAM) 1.3 Project Planning and Activity-Logic Development 1.4 Contract Requirements and Delivery Constraints 1.5 Stakeholder Identification, Needs, and Plan Review 1.6 Constructability Methods and Value Engineering 1.7 Resource Identification and Project Variables 1.8 Scope, Goals, Project Plan, and Phase Definition 1.9 Cost Breakdown Structure and Cost Estimate Development 1.10 Phase Relationships, Baseline Plan, Forecasts, and Risk/Recovery Planning

3 Chapter 2: Critical Path Method Mechanics & Network Logic

2.1 Activity Definition and Logic Relationships 2.2 Activity Durations, Productivity, and Work Calendars 2.3 Forward and Backward Pass Mathematical Mechanics 2.4 Float Calculations and Critical-Path Identification

4 Chapter 3: Advanced Network Techniques & Schedule Constraints

3.1 Schedule Constraints and Their Impact on Dates and Float 3.2 Advanced Logic Modeling: Ladders and Fragnets 3.3 Schedule Levels of Detail and Schedule Basis Documentation 3.4 Schedule Scope and Schedule Specification 3.5 Breakdown-Structure Relationships and the Cost Estimate Model 3.6 Stakeholder Feedback and Types of Schedules 3.7 Activities, Milestones, Schedule Quality, and Basis Documentation

5 Chapter 4: Resource Management & Leveling

4.1 Resource Planning, Allocation, and Histograms 4.2 Resource Leveling vs. Resource Smoothing 4.3 Cumulative Resource S-Curves & Productivity Tracking

6 Chapter 5: Baseline Management & Schedule Updating

5.1 Baseline Establishment, Forecasts, and Controlled Revision 5.2 Progress Measurement and Data Date Mechanics 5.3 Out-of-Sequence Logic: Progress Override vs. Retained Logic 5.4 Schedule Update Review and Quality Verification per RP 53R-06 5.5 Cost/Resource Management, Schedule Change, and Feedback 5.6 Acceleration and Recovery Scheduling per RP 54R-07 5.7 Control Schedules, Variance Analysis, Forecasts, and Management Summaries

7 Chapter 6: Schedule Risk Analysis & Monte Carlo Simulation

6.1 Schedule Risk Principles, Risk Drivers, and Three-Point Estimates 6.2 Monte Carlo Simulation, Criticality, Correlation, and Merge Effects 6.3 Risk Outputs, Confidence Dates, Sensitivity, and Contingency

8 Chapter 7: Earned Value & Earned Schedule Management

7.1 Earned Value Foundations: PV, EV, AC, and Variances 7.2 Traditional EV Performance Indices & Late-Project Quirks 7.3 Earned Schedule (ES) Theory, SV(t), and SPI(t) 7.4 Independent Schedule Forecasting & IEAC(t)

9 Chapter 8: Forensic Schedule Analysis & Delay Claims

8.1 Delay Classification, Criticality, and Contract Questions 8.2 RP 29R-03 Taxonomy, Data Validation, and Method Selection 8.3 TIA, Windowed Analysis, and Subtractive Models 8.4 Concurrency, Pacing, and Float: Technical Analysis Before Entitlement

10 Chapter 9: Executive Communication & Practical Scenario Applications

9.1 Official PSP Memo Writing Framework 9.2 Structured Technical Problem-Solving for PSP Scenarios 9.3 Current Exam Strategy and Core Calculation Review

Free exam prep AACE Planning and Scheduling Professional Practice Questions 100 questions Study Guide 48 topics

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

Key Takeaways Explain This Topic AI

Concurrency requires defined criteria and proof that independent delays affected controlling work during a relevant overlapping period.

Calendar overlap alone does not establish concurrent project delay, and different contracts or jurisdictions may treat concurrency differently.

A pacing explanation should be supported by a preexisting controlling delay, capacity to perform, a deliberate response, and contemporaneous records.

Float ownership and consumption are governed by the contract or applicable law, not by a universal AACE ownership rule.

Schedulers should report technical findings and assumptions while reserving legal entitlement conclusions for the authorized decision process. Last updated: October 2026

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: identify the event and responsible risk under review; validate its dates and affected activities; determine the controlling path during the period; test whether the event independently delayed the same protected completion or milestone; measure the overlap using a stated time granularity; and 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.

Test Your Knowledge

Two delays occur during the same month. What additional fact is most important before calling them concurrent project delay?

Both delay notices use the same font.

Each delay independently affected controlling work or the same protected milestone under the stated test.

Both parties requested money.

Both activities had the same original duration. Check Answer Need a hint? AI

Test Your Knowledge

Which evidence best supports a pacing explanation?

A retrospective assertion made after completion

Any low productivity on a noncritical activity

A preexisting controlling delay, demonstrated capacity to proceed, a deliberate slowdown, and contemporaneous documentation

A negative-float report created after the alleged pacing ended Check Answer Need a hint? AI

Test Your Knowledge

Who owns total float?

Always the contractor under RP 49R-06

Always the owner under RP 29R-03

Always the project on a universal first-come basis

The answer depends on the contract and applicable law; the scheduler can separately quantify float and its consumption. Check Answer Need a hint? AI

Sections you finish are checked off in the contents.

Up Next 9.1 Official PSP Memo Writing Framework Chapter 9: Executive Communication & Practical Scenario Applications

Independent exam preparation notice OpenExamPrep is an independent education provider, not affiliated with or endorsed by the exam sponsors named on this site. Exam and certification names identify what our resources help you study for; they do not imply sponsorship, approval, or review of our materials. Unless a resource expressly identifies authorized public material, our practice questions are independently developed simulations, not actual, recalled, or sponsor-provided exam items. We aim to reflect publicly available exam outlines and topic information in our study resources. Coverage, format, and difficulty may differ from the actual exam, and we cannot guarantee that every detail is accurate or current. Confirm exam requirements, fees, and policies with the official exam sponsor.