Forensic Delay Analysis
Forensic delay analysis is the detailed examination of a project program and its contemporaneous records to establish what caused delay, how it affected the critical path, how the contract allocates responsibility, and what time and cost consequences may follow. It provides the schedule evidence needed to substantiate an extension of time claim, and the analysis needed to test one. Project Scheduling provides forensic delay and disruption analysis for construction and mining disputes across Australia, using recognised methods selected to suit the contract, the facts and the available records.
When You Need Forensic Delay Analysis
Delay analysis matters when time is contested. You may be making an extension of time claim and need to prove the delay was not your risk. You may be defending against a claim and need to test whether it holds. Or a project may have run months over with no agreement on why. In each case the program and the records hold the answer, and a rigorous analysis is what turns a dispute into a resolved position.
Delay Analysis Methods and Their Trade-offs
There is no universally best method. The right technique depends on the contract, the nature of the delay events, the quality of the program and project records, the timing of the assessment, and the question the analysis must answer.
As-planned versus as-built
Compares the baseline program to what was actually built to show where time was lost. Pros: simple, low cost, easy for a tribunal to follow, works when records are thin. Cons: does not by itself prove what drove the critical path, so it is the weakest on causation and the easiest to challenge.
Impacted as-planned
Inserts the delay events into the baseline program to model their effect on the planned completion date. Pros: simple and quick to prepare, and usable where updated programs are not available. Cons: assumes the baseline was achievable and ignores actual progress, so it is easy to challenge on causation.
Time impact analysis
Adds a delay event into the updated program at the point it occurred, to model its impact on the critical path at that time. Pros: the SCL Protocol’s preferred method for assessing extension of time entitlement as events happen, and it reflects the program as it stood. Cons: needs good, regular program updates, is labour-intensive, and remains a modelled result rather than proof of actual delay.
Windows analysis
Splits the project into periods and tracks how the critical path and delay actually moved in each, against the contemporaneous programs. Pros: retrospective and evidence-based, and can address a shifting critical path and concurrent-delay issues more effectively than static methods, provided the contemporaneous records support the analysis. Cons: depends on good updated programs at each window, requires skill and effort to prepare and explain, and concurrent delays and transition periods can be lost between windows.
Collapsed as-built
Starts from the as-built program and removes delay events to show what would have finished but for them. Pros: grounded in what actually happened, and does not rely on the baseline being realistic. Cons: relies on a fully logic-linked as-built program, which rarely exists and if reconstructed is open to conjecture, and the removal of events is open to challenge.
Measured mile
Quantifies lost productivity by comparing an unimpacted period of work with an impacted one. This measures disruption, which is cost, not delay, which is time. Pros: often one of the strongest disruption methods where a genuinely comparable unimpacted period exists, because it compares the project against itself rather than against industry norms. Cons: needs a genuinely comparable unimpacted period and good productivity records. Adjustments for other variables can be contested.
Concurrency and critical path float analysis run alongside these, separating excusable, compensable and concurrent delay and establishing which delays actually affected completion. For contemporaneous or prospective assessment the SCL Protocol recommends time impact analysis where circumstances permit; for retrospective disputes it does not prescribe one universally preferred method, and the technique should be selected to fit the contract, the facts and the records rather than imposed in advance.
Records Win Claims
Delay claims are won or lost on the quality of the contemporaneous record. Australian decision-makers commonly test expert schedule opinions against contemporaneous site records, program updates and factual evidence, and a methodology that cannot be traced back to those records is easier to challenge. The analysis is built from the contemporaneous program and project records, with a transparent method and findings traceable to source, so it stands up in negotiation, adjudication and arbitration. Read about recent cases in our Insights.
What You Get
A clear forensic report setting out cause, responsibility, and the time and cost effect of each delay event
The program analysis and supporting exhibits behind the findings
Extension of time claim substantiation, or a rebuttal of a claim made against you
A methodology that names the technique used and why it suits the records
Expert reporting and, where required, expert witness support for adjudication, arbitration or litigation
A Recent Result
On an earthworks dispute, forensic analysis of the approval record, 215 transactions, demonstrated the baseline was unachievable from the outset. The result was a six-month extension of time and a formal dispute avoided. Read the full case study in our Insights.
Sector-Specific and Evidence-Based
Project Scheduling works across mining, heavy industrial, civil, infrastructure and commercial construction disputes. The analysis is delivered directly, so the findings rest on the evidence, not on which side engaged us.
Entitlement to an extension of time or additional cost always depends on the particular contract, facts and evidence.
Whether you are making a claim or defending one, get delay analysis that stands up to scrutiny. Let us look at where your project stands.
Common Questions on Forensic Delay Analysis
What is forensic delay analysis?
Forensic delay analysis examines the project program, progress updates and contemporaneous project records to establish what caused delay, whether it affected the critical path, how the contract allocates responsibility, and what time and cost consequences may follow. It supports an extension of time claim and provides an evidence-based way of testing one.
How do you prove a construction delay claim?
A delay claim is normally built by linking the claimed event to the project’s actual progress and critical path, then testing that analysis against the contract and the contemporaneous records. The right method depends on the records and the timing of the assessment. A defensible analysis explains its assumptions, identifies competing causes, and allows each finding to be traced back to source material.
Which delay analysis method is best?
There is no single best method. Time impact analysis is generally suited to contemporaneous or prospective assessment where reliable updated programs are available. For retrospective disputes, windows analysis may be appropriate where regular updates exist, while as-planned versus as-built may be proportionate where records are limited. The method should be selected because it fits the facts and records, not because it is automatically preferred.
What is the difference between delay and disruption?
Delay concerns time, whether an event caused the works or a contractual milestone to finish later than they otherwise would have. Disruption concerns productivity and cost, whether work was performed less efficiently, requiring additional time, labour, plant or money. Delay is generally assessed through program and critical path analysis; disruption requires productivity and cause-and-effect evidence, which may include a measured mile comparison where suitable.
Making a claim, or defending one?
Either way, the program and the records hold the answer. Get a forensic analysis that rests on the evidence.