Delay Models That Look Right But Fail in Real Life
Some delay reports look impressive: detailed models, multiple scenarios, logic everywhere. But ask one simple question - did this actually happen? - and the whole thing unravels.
That’s what happened in two landmark cases: V601 v Probuild and White Constructions v PBS Holdings. In both, expert delay evidence was thrown out because it was theoretical, not factual.
If you’re preparing a delay claim or advising someone who is, don’t make the same mistake.
Why delay analysis needs to match reality
In V601, the delay expert who relied on a prospective model was found ‘significantly less reliable’, and is despite having as-built data. The court preferred the analysis that showed what actually happened and why. It was the same story in White, where Justice Hammerschlag said:
“What is required is evidence of what actually happened, not what might have been expected to happen.”
“Clients and courts don’t want delay theory. They want delay proof.”
Delay experts and claims consultants: this applies from day one
This isn’t just courtroom strategy. If you’re a delay analyst or claims consultant writing a claim right now, the standard is the same. If the project has progressed, and you’re still using delay forecasts instead of facts—you’re behind the law.
Your client likely won’t accept this based on the judicial guidance—and rightly so.
And if the matter escalates, you’ll be defending a method that the courts have already ruled against.
What you need to do
Test every delay model against the as-built record
Use plain, logical cause-and-effect reasoning
Explain delays clearly—not just with software outputs
Challenge outdated methods, even if they come from an “expert”
What to avoid
Repackaging forecasts as fact
Using industry templates that don’t suit the project
Submitting theoretical claims to savvy clients
Waiting until dispute resolution to rethink your method
Still relying on a delay method the court threw out while your client keeps rejecting claims based on it?
It might be time to take heed of Justice Digby, who put it plainly:
“The analysis is fundamentally flawed.”
Back to News and Insights
Related News and
Insights from Accura
