Accura Consulting was engaged to provide claims consultancy services for a major urban rail tunnel project in Australia that encountered significant challenges related to delays, cost escalations, and complex contractual obligations.

Accura Consulting was engaged to undertake a detailed cost escalation analysis for a major rail and tunnel project that faced significant financial pressures due to disruption.

In recent years, the construction industry in Australia has witnessed a troubling increase in disputes, driven by a mix of economic pressures, regulatory challenges, and operational inefficiencies.

Disruption claims provide a pathway for contractors to recover losses caused by inefficiencies on a project. For such claims to succeed, they must adhere to the "common-sense" approach.

The critical path represents the longest sequence of dependent activities that determine the shortest possible duration to complete a project.

In many projects, non-contestable works fall directly on the critical path. When they’re delayed, the ripple effect is felt across the entire program.

Navigating claims in today’s environment requires expertise, precision, and a thorough understanding of construction contracts.

A disruption claim aims to show a decrease in productivity, resulting in additional costs that wouldn't have occurred without the disruptive events the Employer causes.

When disputes occur, immediate and effective action is crucial to minimise their impact on costs, timelines, and relationships between stakeholders.

Acceleration following failure by the Employer to recognise that the Contractor has encountered Employer Delay for which it is entitled to an extension of time...

When drafting a quantum and/or delay claim based on several events, claimants commonly use inference rather than causation to build their arguments.  

A simplistic, retrospective methodology, which in its simplest form compares the as-built program to the planned (baseline) program.

Infrastructure, residential, and commercial construction projects can potentially impact natural habitats, affecting flora and fauna.

The NEC contract prescribes that an extension of time, delay and quantum be determined prospectively. The NEC contract requires the contractor to maintain an up-to-date program.

The term “Contract Program” is often used in reference to the Construction or Contractor’s Program. The Construction (or Contractor’s) Program is basically the execution plan and timeline of how the works under the Contract will be carried out and measured. It should consider the key sequences of work and resource dependencies. It should also, depending on the Contract, identify the critical path and the relationships between the planned activities and interfaces.

This article considers the contractual requirements regarding the most appropriate and accepted method of delay analysis in the commonly used Australian Standard General Conditions of Contract.

A lot has already been written about various delay analysis methodologies. The purpose of this article is to summarise the pros and cons of the most commonly accepted methodologies and highlight where they might best be used.

In this article we are going to consider the differences between mitigation, acceleration, and constructive acceleration. The recent case of V601 v Probuild[1] is of interest, as it demonstrates that a constructive acceleration claim can be successful in certain circumstances.

A common question when demonstrating entitlement to an Extension of Time is, who owns the float?

When considering who owns the float, one first must understand the various definitions of 'float' typically associated with construction projects. Secondly, one must understand the applicable contractual clause relating to claiming an extension of time.

An independent delay expert needs to be impartial when engaged in providing early delay and planning advice, so clients understand their actual liabilities or opportunities.