Project Delay and Claims Management Training Course

Participants can assess whether a baseline programme is suitable for delay analysis and claim administration.

• CPM logic defines critical, near-critical, and driving activity chains
• Forward and backward pass calculations establish total and free float
• Calendars, constraints, and lags reviewed for artificial criticality
• Schedule narratives explain logic, assumptions, milestones, and access conditions
• Baseline acceptance criteria tested against contract requirements and constructability
• Data-date discipline preserves status integrity during progress updates

Participants can test whether planned sequencing, durations and resources support credible completion dates.

• WBS coding aligns scope packages, cost accounts, and schedule activities
• Resource-loaded schedules expose crew, plant, and material feasibility
• Quantity-based production rates validate activity durations and sequencing
• Procurement lead times integrated with design release and fabrication milestones
• Interface milestones define handovers between civil, MEP, and commissioning work
• Schedule quality checks identify open ends, excessive lags, and constraints

Participants can evaluate progress updates and identify credible evidence of schedule movement.

• Physical progress rules distinguish installed quantities from reported percentages
• Update cycles compare actual starts, finishes, remaining duration, and logic
• Earned value indicators separate schedule slippage from cost performance
• Photographs, diaries, and inspection records corroborate field progress
• Look-ahead plans expose emerging access, design, and procurement constraints
• Progress dashboards report critical-path movement and milestone forecast dates

Participants can classify delay events and determine the principal entitlement questions requiring investigation.

• Delay events classified as excusable, compensable, concurrent, or contractor-risk
• Employer-risk changes separated from neutral events and contractor default
• Concurrent delay tests distinguish true concurrency from overlapping effects
• Time bars assessed against notice wording, knowledge, and prejudice
• Mitigation duties evaluated using reasonable steps, cost, and available resources
• Disruption distinguished from delay, acceleration, and inefficient working

Participants can establish an event administration process that preserves contractual rights and evidence.

• Notice registers capture event dates, clauses, recipients, and response deadlines
• Contractual notice wording drafted with reservation of rights and particulars
• Cause-and-effect narratives connect instructions, impacts, mitigation, and entitlement
• Engineer determinations tracked against submission dates and contractual time limits
• Correspondence protocols prevent admissions, inconsistent positions, and unsupported assertions
• Document control preserves revision history, transmittals, and evidential status

Participants can select an appropriate delay-analysis method based on records, timing and contractual purpose.

• Prospective and retrospective analyses selected according to available records
• Time impact analysis inserts fragnets into the contemporaneous accepted update
• Impacted as-planned analysis tests event effects against the baseline programme
• Windows analysis examines critical-path movement across successive update periods
• As-planned versus as-built comparison identifies variance without proving causation
• Collapsed as-built analysis considers removing delay events from actual history

Participants can perform and explain a structured time impact analysis for a delay event.

• Fragnet design states event scope, durations, logic ties, and assumptions
• Data-date selection fixes the schedule condition before each delay event
• Statused updates preserve actual progress before inserting prospective impacts
• Impact results distinguish critical delay, noncritical delay, and float consumption
• Sensitivity tests assess alternative logic, duration, and calendar assumptions
• Technical memoranda explain inputs, outputs, limitations, and conclusions

Participants can trace critical-path movement and delay responsibility through successive project periods.

• Window boundaries follow update dates, major events, and stable work periods
• Critical-path shifts traced through logic changes, progress, and calendar revisions
• Delay ownership assigned only after event timing and causal links
• As-built dates reconciled with diaries, reports, photographs, and correspondence
• Period-by-period narratives distinguish planned sequence from actual work progression
• Windows findings presented with graphics, tabulations, and source references

Participants can assess concurrent delay and determine whether acceleration costs may be recoverable.

• Concurrency matrices compare critical effects, timing, responsibility, and contractual consequences
• True concurrent delay tested at project completion rather than activity level
• Pacing evaluated where one party deliberately matches another's delay
• Constructive acceleration assessed through denied extensions and recovery demands
• Directed acceleration distinguished from voluntary mitigation and resequencing
• Recovery schedules tested for resource realism, logic integrity, and achievable dates

Participants can identify, evidence and quantify productivity losses arising from disruptive events.

• Measured mile analysis compares unaffected productivity against disrupted work performance
• Productivity factors isolate drawing changes, access restrictions, and trade stacking
• Labor-hour records reconciled to quantities, timesheets, and payroll data
• System dynamics of cumulative impacts distinguished from isolated disruption events
• Loss-of-productivity claims avoid double recovery with delay and prolongation costs
• Disruption narratives connect contemporaneous records to quantified productivity losses

Participants can calculate time-related costs and test their connection to compensable delay.

• Prolongation costs separated into time-related preliminaries, overheads, and financing
• Site overhead calculations trace staff, plant, facilities, and supervision costs
• Head-office overhead methods compared using Hudson, Emden, and Eichleay formulas
• Actual cost records tested for causation, reasonableness, and contractual recovery
• Acceleration costs quantify overtime, additional shifts, premium freight, and plant
• Interest calculations apply contract rates, compounding rules, and claim periods

Participants can prepare non-duplicative quantum schedules for variations and time-related claims.

• Variation valuation applies contract rates, star rates, and fair valuation
• Daywork records substantiate labor, plant, materials, and agreed mark-ups
• Material price escalation calculated using contractual indices and adjustment formulas
• Currency fluctuation clauses tested against base dates and index publication dates
• Payment certificates reconciled to measured work, variations, and retention
• Claim schedules prevent duplication between valuation, prolongation, and disruption heads

Participants can assemble a clear claim submission linking entitlement, causation, delay and quantum.

• Claim registers prioritise events by notice status, value, limitation, and evidence
• Entitlement matrices pair contractual clauses with facts, records, and remedies
• Chronologies sequence instructions, notices, impacts, submissions, and determinations
• Cause-effect-cost structure links breach or event to requested relief
• Particulars meet contractual requirements for substantiation, updates, and supporting documents
• Claim documents separate factual evidence, analysis, contractual argument, and quantum

Participants can apply common contract procedures and select suitable routes for resolving claim disputes.

• FIDIC 2017 claims procedure mapped from notice through determination and dispute
• NEC4 early warning and compensation event mechanisms compared with FIDIC
• Extension-of-time clauses interpreted with prevention principle and time-bar provisions
• Dispute avoidance boards assessed for referral, procedure, and decision effects
• Negotiation preparation defines BATNA, settlement range, evidence, and authority
• Expert determination, adjudication, arbitration, and litigation compared for claim resolution

Participants can review claim submissions critically and prepare evidence-based settlement positions.

• Schedule review checklist tests logic, calendars, constraints, progress, and revisions
• Independent claim review challenges entitlement, causation, delay, and quantum links
• Cross-examination readiness tests source reliability, assumptions, and alternative explanations
• Peer review protocols document reviewer comments, responses, and version control
• Executive summaries state decision required, exposure, recommendation, and key evidence
• Settlement scenarios model time, cost, cashflow, and relationship consequences

Participants can establish governance routines that improve claim readiness throughout project delivery.

• Claims governance assigns event ownership, approvals, escalation, and reporting cadence
• Monthly claim dashboards show notices, exposure, ageing, determinations, and recovery
• Lessons-learned reviews convert recurring delay causes into project controls
• Risk registers integrate schedule threats, opportunities, owners, triggers, and responses
• Commercial meeting agendas track actions, commitments, disputes, and decision dates
• Records retention schedules protect claim evidence through limitation periods

Participants can build, review and present a complete delay-and-claim strategy for a contested construction project.

• Project fact pattern converted into a complete delay and claim strategy
• Baseline and updates reviewed to select a defensible delay-analysis method
• Event chronology, notices, and evidence mapped against contractual entitlement
• Time impact and concurrency findings translated into extension-of-time conclusions
• Prolongation and disruption heads quantified without duplication or unsupported assumptions
• Claim dossier presented with executive recommendation, risks, and negotiation position