When faced with a construction delay, you may wonder what form of delay analysis is most supported in Australia: prospective or retrospective? Any delay expert worth securing knows where recent judgments sit.

Claims for prolongation costs are challenging because entitlement and quantification are rarely the sole matters in dispute. For delay experts and quantum experts, analysis and reports need more.

A widespread misconception in construction project controls holds that a programme has no value until formally approved by the Engineer, Project Manager, or Employer. For forensic delay experts, this is one of the key spaces delays begin.

Fore forensic quantum experts and delay experts, Santos v Fluor is an example of how when you can show the chain of causation with evidence in the contemporaneous record, the claim has a foundation.

Most extension of time disputes are lost in the gap between what happened on site and what got written down. By the time a delay expert opens the file, the outcome is often already half-decided.

For delay experts, the daily delay measure (DDM) is an important as-planned versus as-built technique used to compare the planned performance of a project with its actual progress.

Early engagement helps create robust baseline programmes, supports contractual compliance, improves record keeping and strengthens the evidentiary foundation of future claims and defences.

Planning and programming are closely related but different parts of project management. Planning is about deciding how a project will be delivered, while programming is about communicating that plan, usually through a schedule or Gantt chart.

The decision in Santos v Fluor underscores that credibility lies not in the delay analysis model chosen by forensic delay experts but in the discipline, clarity and factual rigour of the analysis itself.

Concurrent delay remains one of the most complex issues in construction projects, with two landmark Australian cases continuing to influence how courts and practitioners approach this challenge.

Successful project delivery doesn’t happen by chance. Project advisory services play a vital role in ensuring construction and engineering projects are delivered on time, within budget, and to the required quality standards.

There are periods where delay risk sits in the background. As we sit here in mid-2026 with more macro uncertainty than ever thanks to the Iran War and inflation concerns that never really went away post-COVID, this is not the time to let delay risk go unchecked.

Float looks simple but in reality, it is anything but. When the Accura team supports clients with construction delay analysis, we see most construction programs show float but many do not explain it. Even less deal with it when delay hits.

A delay expert review of Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd regarding the refurbishment of the Tank Stream Hotel in Sydney with  DDI Group Pty Ltd subcontracted under an amended AS 4303 subcontract. 

In Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 184, the Supreme Court of Queensland provides one of the clearest recent judicial statements on construction delay expert analysis.

Construction claims often fail because they do not clearly explain what happened on site. Van Oord UK Ltd v Allseas UK Ltd is a textbook example and a valuable lesson for quantum experts and delay experts in construction claims.

An important case where the decision supports parties resisting “first in time” concurrency arguments and reinforces a pragmatic, fact-driven approach to delay.

The Technology and Construction Court’s decision in Motherwell Bridge Construction Ltd v Micafil remains an important authority on delay analysis and the recovery of acceleration costs.

Whether a construction program forms part of the contract documentation depends on the provisions of the relevant standard form contract. Delay Expert, Andrew McKenna explores the relationship between program and contract.

Accura Delay Expert, Andrew McKenna explores the complexities contractors face when claiming damages for losses resulting from employer-induced project delays and the difficulties in proving and quantifying losses.