Over the past couple of weeks we have been asked by two separate clients to review responses that they’ve received where their claims have been rejected. Whilst in both cases, the respondents cited several reasons for rejection, some valid and some not, both cited the method of delay analysis submitted with the claims as a cause for rejection. In my experience, this ranks as one of the most frequently used reasons for the rejection of claims.

Case 1

In the first case, the contractor had simply taken a number of what he considered to be critical activities and established the number of claimable delay days to these activities. He then added the highest number of delay days to the prevailing Time for Completion and requested an extension of time to the resultant date.

I can absolutely guarantee that no respondent will award an extension of time on this basis and that includes myself if I were acting on behalf of the client. I would need to see the effect of the employer-risk events on the latest programme using the existing logic, I would need to check that existing contractor delays had been considered and if a cost claim was involved, I would need to verify that there was no concurrent delay.

Case 2

The second case was different. The contractor had produced a good delay analysis using one of the recommended methods, but the Engineer had rejected it, simply on the basis that he wanted a different method of delay analysis and, I suspect, because he did not understand the analysis itself. This is very common because it allows those acting on behalf of the respondent to defer putting their necks on the line and making a decision which could result in an award to the claimant.

The problem here was caused entirely by the claimant, because he did not justify the use of the chosen method of delay analysis, he did not explain how it had been performed or  demonstrate the effect on the prevailing time for completion. Had he done so, this would have closed the door on the respondent using the delay analysis as a reason for rejection.

Delay Analysis: 8 Tips for Success

Our 8 top tips for successful delay analyses are:

  1. Ensure that you use an appropriate method of delay analysis for the project, the nature of the delays and the information that is available
  2. Justify that the chosen method is appropriate for the circumstances
  3. Use an appropriate programme as a basis of the delay analysis and explain why and how it has been used
  4. Perform the delay analysis in accordance with established procedures and to an appropriate professional standard
  5. If logic errors in the base programme are discovered, correct them and explain why and how they have been corrected
  6. Explain in the claim narrative exactly how the analysis has been performed in such a way that a non-expert programmer can understand it
  7. Explain the findings of the delay analysis
  8. Use the findings to properly calculate the extension of time that you are claiming and explain the calculations clearly.

Keep these tips in mind and you’ll be submitting with success each and every time.

Hewitt Decipher Partnership’s expert consultants have been preparing and responding to delay analyses for many years. We know how to comply with good practice to ensure that you have a robust delay analysis to support a claim and, if working on the employer’s side of the fence, we know the standards that the claimant must meet to justify an award.

Can we help you? Get in touch via our contact page; we would be happy to discuss any support that you may need. Want our article straight in your inbox, sign up to our mailing list.