Forensic Delay Analysis

Forensic delay analysis is the detailed examination of a project programme 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 independent analysis needed to test one. Project Scheduling provides independent 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 programme and the records hold the answer, and a rigorous, independent 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 programme and project records, the timing of the assessment, and the question the analysis must answer.

As-planned versus as-built

Compares the baseline programme 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 event into the updated programme at the point it occurred, to model its impact on the critical path at that time. Pros: for contemporaneous or prospective extension of time assessment, the SCL Protocol recommends time impact analysis where the circumstances permit, and it reflects the programme as it stood. Cons: needs good, regular programme updates, is labour-intensive, and produces a modelled assessment of the event's effect that must be tested against the progress records and other contemporaneous evidence.

Time impact analysis

Adds a delay event into the updated programme 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 programme as it stood. Cons: needs good, regular programme 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 programmes. 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 programmes 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 programme 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 programme, 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, programme 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 programme 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 programme 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.

Independent and Sector-Specific

Project Scheduling works across mining, heavy industrial, civil, infrastructure and commercial construction disputes. The analysis is independent and 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.

Discuss Your Delay Claim

Common Questions on Forensic Delay Analysis

What is forensic delay analysis?

Forensic delay analysis examines the project programme, 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 independent basis for 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 programmes 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 programme and critical path analysis; disruption requires productivity and cause-and-effect evidence, which may include a measured mile comparison where suitable.