Claims advisory →
When the analysis needs to become a substantiated claim.
Forensic schedule analysis is the retrospective examination of programme records, including baselines, updates, logic, calendars and contemporaneous progress evidence, to explain how delay occurred, how the critical path moved and what time impact the records support. The method depends on the contract, forum and quality of data actually available.
The problem
Delay is rarely disputed in the abstract. What is disputed is why it happened, whose event caused it, and how much time it affected. Those questions are answered by the programme record, or they are not answered at all.HKA's CRUX Insight research, drawn from more than 2,200 projects in 114 countries, found extensions of time sought by contractors averaged 65.8% of planned schedules and sums in dispute averaged 33.4% of contract budgets. Against that exposure, analysis quality is not a technicality. A model built on missing logic, retrospective constraints or unexplained duration changes inherits those defects.
Scope
Schedule health and baseline validation
Test the source programmes for logic, calendars, constraints, completeness and contract compliance before relying on them.
As-built reconstruction and update validation
Build a fact chronology and test progress evidence against the programme updates.
Critical-path and delay analysis
Explain critical-path movement, delay events, concurrency and pacing using records that can be reviewed.
Time-impact, windows and retrospective analysis
Select an appropriate method for the question and the available data rather than applying one technique by habit.
Demonstrative evidence and independent review
Prepare clear programme narratives, exhibits and reviews of an opposing analysis.
Capability transfer
Explain the method, assumptions and findings so the client team can use the work responsibly.
Method
- 01
Validate the source data
AACE International Recommended Practice 29R-03 treats source validation as foundational.
- 02
Set the forensic question
Define the event, period, contractual test and forum before selecting a method.
- 03
Choose the method transparently
Consider observational and modelled approaches, prospective or retrospective, and state their limitations.
- 04
Analyse criticality and causation
Trace events through the contemporaneous programme and records.
- 05
Test sensitivity
Document assumptions, alternatives and material data weaknesses.
- 06
Report reviewably
Use a chronology, explanation and exhibits that allow another analyst to reproduce the reasoning.
What you get
Schedule health and baseline validation report
Defect register against source programmes with materiality assessment.
As-built chronology
Fact chronology with source references.
Method selection memorandum
Method chosen, justification and alternatives considered.
Delay analysis report
Findings, windows, critical-path movement and time impact.
Demonstrative exhibits
Programme extracts, windows charts and comparisons.
Independent review report
Testing of another party’s schedule analysis.
What we need
- Contract and relevant programme requirements
- Native baseline programme and all available updates
- Calendars, logic reports, schedule narratives and change logs
- Progress records, site diaries, minutes, photographs and correspondence
- Notices, instructions, approvals and variation records
- Any analysis already prepared by either party
Engagement
Engagement length and composition depend on the question, the available records and the required decision date. An initial discussion establishes scope; no published prices or generic duration promises are used.
| Engagement shape | Suitable where | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
| Schedule health check | Early triage: whether the programme record is analysable. | Confirmed after scope and record review |
| Single event or window analysis | A discrete, bounded delay question. | Confirmed after scope and record review |
| Full retrospective analysis | Multi-event, whole-of-project delay position. | Confirmed after scope and record review |
| Independent review or rebuttal | Testing an opposing party’s analysis. | Confirmed after scope and record review |
| Technical support alongside counsel | Programme-side input to a live dispute. | Confirmed after scope and record review |
Scope limits
- Legal advice or advocacy.
- Quantum valuation, except coordination of the programme-side evidence.
- A preselected conclusion that the records do not support.
Frequently asked questions
It is the investigation of delay using CPM or other recognised schedule calculation methods and contemporaneous project evidence. Its purpose is to explain the significance of events in the programme network, including causation and criticality.
There is no universal method. AACE RP 29R-03 explains that method selection depends on the contract, facts, applicable law, available documentation and the question being asked. The selected method and limitations are stated in the work.
Sometimes. The first output may be a source-validation finding rather than a delay conclusion. Incomplete records change the methodology, assumptions and confidence that can responsibly be placed on the result.
Delay concerns time and the completion date. Disruption concerns loss of productivity and can exist without moving completion. They require different evidence and analysis.
Yes. An independent review can test source data, logic, method selection, assumptions and whether the stated conclusion follows from the records.
Initial discussion
Discuss a forensic schedule analysis challenge.
Share the project context, the decision required and the records available. The first conversation is used to establish whether the work is a fit.
The analysis is technical and evidence-led. Contract interpretation, governing law and advocacy remain matters for the client’s legal advisers.
Last reviewed: August 2026