When delay claims reach court, one question dominates: what truly caused the delay, and can it be proved? In V601 Developments v Probuild, Justice Digby set the benchmark.

Santos v Fluor confirms that delay analysis is not an abstract exercise in software or spreadsheets. Delay Expert, Andrew McKenna explains how it is a forensic exercise rooted in evidence, requiring professional judgment, and clear reasoning.

Delay methodologies don’t always survive the evidence test. This case had as planned versus as built windows approach and a collapsed as built, or but for, analysis.

The dynamic critical path method makes demonstrating delay after the fact much easier. It negates the need to reconstruct the as-built programme so that a clear critical path can be demonstrated to prove Extension of Time entitlement.

Recent Australian mega-projects have experienced significant cost overruns due to unsuitable procurement methods, particularly fixed-price lump sum contracts that fail to accommodate project complexities and risks.

There’s been a quiet shift in how some delay practitioners interpret “cause and effect” analysis, and not always for the better.

Choosing the right methodology for forensic delay analysis is critical to accurately evaluating project delays and resolving disputes.

Recent Australian mega-projects have experienced significant cost overruns due to unsuitable procurement methods, particularly fixed-price lump sum contracts that fail to accommodate project complexities and risks.

Delay expert, Andrew McKenna explores why records are crucial and what types of evidence are most effective to support delay analysis. 

Delay expert, Andrew McKenna highlights the key hurdles faced by delay experts and planning experts in analysing construction delays, alongside practical lessons to overcome these issues.

Delay expert, Andrew McKenna discusses the importance of baseline programme integrity, common challenges, and strategies for maintaining robust baseline programmes in Australian construction projects. 

One of the most valuable methods of delay analysis is As-Built But For, also known as the Collapsed As-Built method. Delay Expert, Andrew McKenna details the pros and cons of the method.

Concurrent delay in extension of time claims occurs when multiple delay events happen simultaneously or overlap on a construction project, impacting the critical path. They can be complex and the services of a Delay Expert can prove effective.

While the term "negative float" has become standard in scheduling jargon, it is a misnomer that oversimplifies a complex issue.

As populations grow, the demand for quality healthcare facilities becomes increasingly urgent. Hospitals must be designed and constructed to serve the public for years to come, with the flexibility to adapt to emerging healthcare needs.

When reviewing which type of delay analysis is most important for a specific case, it’s worth considering the pros and cons of the most commonly accepted methodologies. One of the most popularly used methods is time impact analysis.

Impacted As-Planned is a prospective methodology that relies on impacting the originally planned sequence of works with the delay event.

The Zweite M/S “Philippa Schulte” Shipping GmbH v PSA Corp Ltd [2012] SGHC 135 case highlights essential lessons for Delay Experts and Quantity Surveyors.

Delays are a common challenge in construction projects, often leading to disputes, financial losses, and strained relationships between stakeholders.

Managing delays in complex projects requires a proactive approach, robust planning, and effective communication.