Forensic delay analysis helps identify causes of project delays and quantify their impact in construction disputes.
Objectively quantifying delays from each activity is ideal, yet opposing experts often disagree due to differing methodologies. These variances highlight why selecting the right approach matters.
When evaluating delay reports, recognizing robust methods versus weaker ones is key to spotting flaws and ensuring reliability—a lesson from decades of construction claims expertise.
This guide details three proven forensic delay analysis methods used by professionals:
Explore their features for informed application in real-world scenarios.
This method inserts fragnet(s)—networks of activities representing changes or unaccounted impacts—into the baseline schedule to assess shifts in completion dates.
The baseline is the original, unmodified approved schedule. Always use contemporaneous or officially approved plans for accuracy.
IAP assumes delays from fragnet insertion mirror the actual project impact.
Unlike IAP, TIA inserts the fragnet into a project schedule update closest to the delay event.
A resulting completion delay attributes directly to the fragnet's cause.
PAB compares planned versus actual performance, evaluating cumulative path impacts across time periods.
Start with an approved baseline or contemporaneous schedule. Divide analysis into periods, comparing actuals to the contemporary plan—each starting from an updated approved schedule.
