Although pacing delay is no longer a new type of delay, this form of delay can be considered, under some circumstances, highly controversial. Either party of the contract may opt to pace the project activities for a parent delay event, yet without reserving its right to claim additional costs due to the parent delay or even legally protect its action. This may turn into a dispute as the party that took the pacing delay decision may lose its entitlement for additional costs if appropriate proof of pacing action is not provided because the pacing action may be confused with concurrency. Although there is a great difference between concurrency and pacing, they are often confused, basically, due to lack of documentation and contractual control. The fundamental difference is that pacing should be a conscious decision taken in reaction and only after a parent delay has occurred. However, while pacing is easily asserted, it cannot be shown by forensic schedule analysis methods alone. This paper discusses the different scenarios for the impact of pacing delays, the practical problems arising from each scenario, the methodology and limitations for application, and the guidelines to facilitate proper management and informed pacing decisions.