FORENSIC PLANNING & DELAY ANALYSIS
When the programme becomes the evidence
Delay and extension-of-time analysis under NEC, JCT and FIDIC, built from the native files and the project record.
CL.62.2 AND CL.63.5: DELAY IS DEMONSTRATED, NOT ASSERTED
Under NEC4, a compensation event moves the Completion Date only by the delay shown to planned Completion on the Accepted Programme, and quotations stand or fall on that demonstration. JCT and FIDIC apply the same test in different language: cause and effect, proven on the programme and the contemporaneous records.
We build that demonstration. The analysis is constructed from the native programme files and the project records, method-matched to the contract and the forum, and issued in a form that a project manager, an adjudicator or an opposing expert can interrogate without the position failing.
NEC ACCREDITED
APMG QUALIFIED
P6 / MS PROJECT / ASTA
NEC / JCT / FIDIC
01
THE QUESTION
Where did the time go, and whose is it
Every extension of time, every disputed quotation and every damages deduction reduces to the same picture: the plan, the actual, and the period between them attributed event by event. The analysis exists to make that attribution hold under examination.
02
WHEN THIS WORK IS ENGAGED
Six positions, one standard of proof
THE POSITION
WHAT WE ESTABLISH
An EOT submitted, not accepted
The entitlement was asserted on a narrative the assessor would not accept. We rebuild the position from the records and the programme so the next submission is assessed on evidence rather than argument.
CE quotations disputed on time
The delay element of an NEC quotation is challenged, or a Cl.64 assessment is coming. We isolate the event, model it against the Accepted Programme and show the movement of planned Completion.
Delay damages threatened or deducted
Liquidated damages are notified or already withheld. We test how much of the period genuinely sits with the contractor, separate concurrent and employer events, and quantify the defensible balance.
Adjudication or proceedings ahead
Referral windows are short and the analysis carries the case. We build the delay analysis and exhibits to the standard the forum expects, ready for counsel or the appointed expert.
A post-completion claim to assemble
The project has closed and the story is scattered across programme revisions, correspondence and site records. We reconstruct the as-built from the native files into one coherent, referenced account.
A subcontractor claim to test
A delay claim has arrived from below the line. We give it an independent check of method, logic and records before money moves or the position is passed up the chain.
03
WHAT YOU RECEIVE
Three layers of analysis, issued as evidence
Each engagement is scoped to the position being tested. Most use one layer, contested positions use all three.
LAYER A
As-planned vs as-built reconstruction
ISSUED AS
Baseline integrity is checked first. The as-built is then built from native programme files, progress records, diaries and correspondence, with periods of delay identified on the longest path and tied to dated records.
As-built programme
Delay schedule
Records map
LAYER B
Time impact and windows analysis
ISSUED AS
Event fragnets and time slice windows, run prospectively or retrospectively as the contract mechanism and the forum require, quantifying the movement of planned Completion window by window.
Impacted programmes
Windows summary
Entitlement table
LAYER C
Native file forensics
ISSUED AS
XER, XML, MPP and Asta files interrogated directly: recovered baselines, calendar changes, progress overrides, logic and constraint edits, status date discipline. What the file history says is often the strongest exhibit.
File audit note
Version chronology
Exhibit pack
Disruption and loss of productivity assessment, including measured mile analysis where the records permit, is delivered within Layers A and B.
04
METHOD DISCIPLINE
The method is chosen to fit the facts
We select against the considerations set out in the SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd edition: the records available, the contract mechanism, the forum and proportionality. The selection and its reasoning are recorded in a short method memo before any analysis is built, so the choice itself can withstand challenge.
The contractual ground is covered in our published guides to NEC delay analysis and extension of time, compensation events and Clause 31/32 programme compliance. Strong contemporaneous records lower the cost of every step on this page: that discipline is what our live controls and reporting retainers maintain month by month.
05
WHY THIS PRACTICE
Why clients bring this work to us
Grounded in live NEC delivery
We spend our working weeks inside live NEC4 programmes: Cl.61.3 notifications, Accepted Programme submissions and Completion Date positions managed in real time on current M&E and infrastructure delivery. The analysis is written by people who still carry the live consequence of getting it wrong.
We work from the native files
Many reconstructions start from printed programmes. Ours start from the XER: recovered baselines, override history, calendar and logic edits, status date discipline. The file history is evidence in itself, and it is read directly, not re-typed.
The honest answer arrives first
Step one is a records audit closed by a written method memo. If the records cannot support the position, the engagement ends there, in writing, before fees scale. Time-barred positions are flagged on the first call, not discovered later.
Scope is deliberately narrow: we do time. Quantum stays with your quantity surveyor or appointed quantum expert, and we provide the programme basis their figures stand on.
06
FOR DISPUTES PRACTICES AND EXPERT TEAMS
The analyst layer, under your direction
We provide reconstruction, windows builds, file forensics and exhibit preparation to disputes consultancies and appointed experts: delivered under your direction and your brand, remote, on a day-rate basis, with NDA as standard and native-file turnaround measured in days.
Your method, our build
Scope and methodology are set by your lead expert. We construct the analysis to that instruction and hand back working files, not just outputs.
Conflict-checked, brand-silent
Conflicts are declared per instruction before any material is shared. No authorship credit is expected and none is taken.
P6-native speed
We live in the planning tools your matters arrive in. Native files in, audited reconstructions and exhibits out, without a translation layer.
WORKING ENVIRONMENT: PRIMAVERA P6 · XER / XML · MS PROJECT · ASTA POWERPROJECT · POWER BI EXHIBITS
07
HOW AN ENGAGEMENT RUNS
Four steps, each one recorded
STEP 01
Records and file audit
What exists, what is missing, and what the records can actually support. The engagement can end here, in writing.
STEP 02
Method memo
The selected method and its reasoning, agreed in writing before the build starts, so the approach cannot later be challenged as convenient.
STEP 03
Analysis build
Programmes reconstructed or impacted, events mapped to cause and ownership, the period quantified window by window.
STEP 04
Report and exhibits
Issued through a documented QA gate in the form the audience needs: a submission, a referral bundle or an expert support pack.
FIRST STEP
Start with a Position Review
OUTPUT
Records audit, method memo, written entitlement view
TURNAROUND
A fixed-fee first step, completed within one week: the records and file audit, the method memo, and a written view of what the records can support and what they cannot. Test the position before the other side does.
​
A 30-minute call confirms the contract, the records available and the question the analysis must answer. A written scope and fixed fee follow within 48 hours.
​
NEC, JCT and FIDIC. Live positions, post-completion claims and proceedings support.
One week from receipt of the native files
COMMITMENT
Scope and fee fixed in writing before work starts. If the records cannot support the position, it ends there.
CONFIDENTIALITY
NDA as standard. Conflicts declared per instruction.