The record decides who pays.
Forensic delay analysis and claims support built on the contemporaneous record. Windows analysis, time impact analysis and as-planned versus as-built, following AACE recommended practices, written to hold up in negotiation, mediation, arbitration or court.
Why claims are lost.
A method chosen for the answer
Analyses built backward from the desired result fall apart under cross-examination. Method has to come before conclusion.
Concurrency ignored
When both parties delayed the job, a claim that pretends otherwise loses credibility on every other point too.
No contemporaneous record
Missing updates, undated revisions and unwritten notices. The analysis can only be as strong as the record it stands on.
How we analyze delay.
- 01
Gather the full record
Every schedule update, daily report, RFI, change, notice and meeting minute, organized by date so the story can be checked.
- 02
Choose the right method
Windows analysis, TIA, as-planned versus as-built or collapsed as-built, chosen for the contract and the record, and explained.
- 03
Analyze period by period
Critical path and delay measured in each window, with responsibility assigned to events, not to parties by assumption.
- 04
Deal with concurrency
Concurrent and pacing delays are identified and treated openly, so the conclusion survives the other side’s expert.
- 05
Report for the decision maker
A clear report with charts a mediator or judge can follow, and expert support through negotiation and testimony.
What you get.
Scoped to your project and delivered in native files your team owns.
Method, findings and conclusions on critical delay, responsibility and concurrency, tied to the record.
Excusable, compensable and non-excusable delay by event, with the evidence for each.
Extended general conditions, acceleration and disruption costs tied to the delay findings.
A structured narrative ready to submit, or a point-by-point response to a claim against you.
Support in negotiation, mediation and arbitration, with clear visuals of the critical path through time.
The claim said 120 days. The windows said fewer.
A typical dispute: the contractor claims four months of owner-caused delay, the owner rejects all of it. Analyzed window by window, part of the delay is owner-caused, part is the contractor’s own, and some is concurrent. A position built that honestly is the one that settles, because the other side cannot pick it apart.
- AACE
- Recommended practices followed
- Window
- By window analysis
- Both
- Sides of concurrency addressed
See it in the work.
Confidential projects where these controls apply, and a live instrument you can run on the shared Controls Lab schedule.
Questions owners ask us.
Do you work for owners or contractors?
Both, but never both sides of the same dispute. We confirm conflicts before we look at any document.
Can you help before a dispute starts?
Yes, and it is far cheaper. Time impact analysis and good change records during the job prevent most claims. See Change & Contract Management.
Which delay analysis method is best?
The one that fits the contract and the record. Windows analysis is often strongest where good monthly updates exist; we explain the choice in every report.
What if our schedule updates are poor or missing?
We work with what exists: daily reports, pay apps, correspondence and photos can rebuild an as-built record, and we state the limits openly.
Related services
In a dispute? Start with the record.
Share the project, the latest schedule and the date that matters. A senior project controls lead replies within one business day.