The reliability of critical path method (CPM) techniques in the analysis and evaluation of delay claims

Cost Engineering (Morgantown, West Virginia)

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 35-37

  Kallo, Gasan G ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; SCHEDULING;

CRITICAL PATH METHOD (CPM); DELAY CLAIMS;

CRITICAL PATH ANALYSIS;

EID: 0030145455     PISSN: 02749696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Trade Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Continental Consolidated Corp. US Army Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals. Nos. 2743 and 2766, 67-2 BCA 6624.
2. Fortec Constructors v United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 490 (1985).
3. Haney v United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 148, 676 F.2d 584 (1982).
4. J.A. Jones. US Army Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals. Nos. 3035, 3226, 72-1 BCA 9261.
5. Minmar Builders, Inc. v United States, Greater Services Board of Contract Appeals, No. 3430, 72-2 BCA 9599.
6. Santa Fe, Inc. v United States, VABCA Nos. 1943 et al, 84-2 BCA 17,341.
7. Titan Pacific Construction Corp. v United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 630 (1989).