The As-built programme may be the most underrated document on any project for delay experts. A vital record of what really happened, activity by activity, as the project unfolded.

The strongest prolongation claims are not necessarily those supported by the largest volume of records. Delay experts build the strongest claims with an evidentiary pathway that is clear, logical and capable of being tested.

A negative number on a programme is the schedule telling you and experienced delay experts that the project is already behind where it needs to be to hit the contracted date.

True concurrent delay is rarer than the term suggests as delay experts understand. Two genuinely independent causes, each capable on its own of causing the same period of critical delay at the same time.

Prospective methods are useful during delivery but once the work is complete, those models compete with actual events and, that’s where retrospective methods take precedence.

Melbourne and Brisbane delay and quantum experts examine prolongation costs, Costain v Haswell and what Australian construction disputes can learn from the decision.

Most EOT clauses are read as hurdles but there’s one that is often missed, and it gives the principal or head contractor a discretionary power to grant an EOT even where no valid claim has been made at all.

Construction delay expert insight: why retrospective delay analysis holds up in court, drawing on V601 v Probuild and Kane v Sopov, to show what actually makes a delay claim defensible.

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.

The decisions in A.M.O. Rifat Holdings Pty Ltd v Dib is likely to become an important authority on quantum meruit and the Court’s treatment of the evidence. For expert quantity surveyors the judgment demonstrates what good valuation evidence looks like.

By the time cross-examination starts, it's too late to fix a weak methodology. The discipline has to be built into the report from the first draft: causation traced event by event, assumptions labelled as assumptions, and so on.

The work of a quantum expert witness sits at the intersection of quantity surveying, contract law, and forensic investigation, and the experts who do it well are fluent in all three.

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.