Forensic
Delay Analysis
We find ways to present these complex arguments in a way that is simple to comprehend and sufficiently robust to survive the test.
Selection of Delay Analysis Methodology
As Planned vs As Built
Modelled Additive
Observational Dynamic Contemporaneous
Modelled Subtractive / Collapsed as Built
Contractual Analysis of Delays
Get a Free Consultation
Construction processes involve complex relationships between project parties which generate multiple delays on projects. These delays may occur concurrently and are often caused by different parties.
Consequently, schedule delay analysis and claim management are unavoidable processes which require effective tools and techniques to resolve the disputes that arise due to causation and impact of delays.
An impartial allocation of responsibility for accrued delays is essential to the resolution of many construction disputes.
However, the impact of delays to the as built project schedule has to be determined first.
A structured investigation of activities and schedules, that evaluates or models the impact of delays to project schedules is called Forensic Schedule Delay Analysis.
Our Team members underwent one of the most comprehensive trainings on the market, led by Mr Chris Carson, who is regarded as the industry leader in the field of Forensic Delay Analysis.
Selection of Delay Analysis Methodology
It is not possible to provide upfront selection of methodology; not all methodologies are suitable for claim at hand. This depends, amongst other factors, on the contract definitions, level of schedules’ details, existence and quality of contemporary schedule updates, size of the claim and available budget for the delay analysis.
Show more
Before we start an actual delay analysis, we perform so called Claim Triage, where our whole Team, in a structured way, evaluates the contract, the quality of records and all other parameters that may affect the selection of methodology. A summary report with recommendation for use of particular methodology is then submitted to the Client for approval, before the delay analysis commences.
We are following the nomenclature defined by the AACE® International (Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering) Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 where nine Method Implementation Protocols (MIP) are divided into following groups:
As Planned vs As Built
(MIP 3.1 & MIP 3.2)
These two methods are static observational method that simply compare as planned and as built schedules. It is applicable for the simpler projects where the schedules did not experience shift in the critical path activities.
MIP 3.1 uses an overall comparison of Baseline Schedule that is compared to As Built Schedule while MIP 3.2 uses comparison in time segments. This methodology is used on the simple projects where the As Built logic did not deviate much from the baseline logic and the Critical path sequence of activities remained unchanged during project lifecycle.
Observational Dynamic Contemporaneous
(MIP 3.3, MIP 3.4 & MIP 3.5)
This group of methodologies is observational which means there is no change to any schedule by adding or deducting the activities and updating the Schedules. They are also dynamic, which means that schedule critical path logic might have changed during project execution. This recommends them for the use on most complex disputes where concurrent delays, acceleration and pacing need to be justified.
Show more
MIP 3.3 (As Is) compares the as planned and as built for various time periods (Windows) without separating the logic change and progress in schedule updates
MIP 3.4 (Split) splits the change in the schedule update that is caused by the progress from the change that is caused by updating the schedule logic.
MIP 3.5 (Recreated) is the method where the new contemporaneous schedule update is recreated from two existing ones. It is used where there are not many contemporaneous schedule updates.
Modelled Additive
(MIP 3.6 & MIP 3.7)
These two methods are referred as modelled techniques as they evaluate updated schedules which are developed by adding the sequence of activities (fragnets) that represent the delay. Both methods are hypothetical and therefore need some level of agreement between the disputed parties about the fragnets used.
Show more
MIP 3.6 (Impacted as Planned) is a single based method (Static) that uses only the Schedule Baseline.
MIP 3.7 (Time Impact Analysis) is a dynamic method as it uses contemporaneous schedule updates. This is the delay analysis method recommended by Delay Protocol issues by Society of Construction Law UK.
Modelled Subtractive / Collapsed as Built
(MIP 3.8 & MIP 3.9)
These two methods rely on the as built schedules only. Recreation of logic between as built activities makes them extremely complex and susceptible to manipulation.
MIP 3.8 Single Collapsed as Built consists of the extraction of activities representing delays from the As Built Schedule. Then, the impacts of this extraction are evaluated.
Show more
MIP 3.9 Multiple Base Collapsed as Built uses different as built schedules, each of them representing a particular time window. This is one of the most complex methods for Forensic Schedule Analysis.
Our Forensic Delay Experts will determine which methodology of analysis is most appropriate based on the type of claim and available documentation.
Contractual Analysis of Delays
Results of the Forensic Delay Analysis only show the impact of particular delay events to an overall schedule. These findings alone are relevant for the Expert determination of the delay impact but are not sufficient for the claim preparation.
Responsibility for each delay needs to be assigned by a Claim and sometimes Legal Specialist. This service goes hand in hand with Forensic Delay Analysis and we are able to provide an overall package that includes a complete assessment of delay that will result in the Claim Preparation Process.
Our Forensic Delay Analysis Experts
Nebojsa Pavlovic
Nebojsa has more than 20 years of experience working in major civil engineering and resources, water infrastructure projects throughout the Middle East, Cyprus and Balkans as a designer and as a consultant gaining hands-on experience from the ground up.
Waqar Nazir
A Senior Manager with widespread international experience of 20+ years in Project Management, Dispute Resolution, Contracts / Commercial Administration, Construction Claims, Project Controls, Construction Law, and Forensic Delay Analysis on large-scale construction projects.
Yashwant Mishra
Yashwant has more than 30 years of experience working in major civil engineering and resources, infrastructure projects along with few building and oil & gas projects as a Project Planner, Scheduler and Civil Engineer working with lead international firms.