Extension of time disputes are usually lost on records rather than on merit. A party with a good entitlement and poor contemporaneous evidence will lose to a party with a weaker entitlement and better evidence, and most organisations do not find that out until they have already committed to a claim or a defence.
The Delay and Extension of Time Position Review is a fixed scope, independent assessment of where you actually stand, delivered before you commit to a course of action.
Who it is for
Contractors and subcontractors considering whether to pursue an extension of time, and needing to know whether the records will carry it.
Clients and project managers facing a claim, who need an independent view of it before responding.
Anyone in a compensation event assessment where the parties disagree on the programme impact and both are asserting rather than demonstrating.
What the review covers
The review answers four questions and stops there. It is deliberately not a full forensic report:
- What do the contemporaneous records actually support, as distinct from what is being asserted
- Which delay analysis method fits the available records, the contract and the stage the project is at, and which methods are not available to you
- Whether the events being relied on are on the critical path, and whether concurrency is present
- Whether the notices required by the contract were given, when, and what the consequences of any failure are
What you receive
A written opinion on the strength of the position, stated plainly, including where it is weak. A review that tells you what you want to hear is worth nothing.
A recommended method, with the reason it fits and the reasons the alternatives do not.
A record gap list, identifying what is missing and what could still be gathered while it is gatherable, which is often the single most valuable output when a project is still running.
A view on whether a full forensic analysis is justified by the sums at stake.
Why this comes first
A full forensic delay analysis is an expensive document. Commissioning one before knowing whether the records support it is the most common way organisations spend money on a case they were never going to win. This review is designed to be the cheap step that decides whether the expensive step is worth taking.