October 2012

by Donald G. Gavin and Robert M. D’Onofrio (CPMI)

There is an undeniable need for logical, factually supportable and credible evidence to assist in calculating delay, time extensions, concurrency, and compensability, as well as liquidated damages and actual damages. Yet the differing methods of scheduling (programme) analysis can lead to distrust and rejection of some or all resulting evidence. This feature article in Construction Law International suggests a series of best practices to improve the reliability of such evidence and to increase its acceptability.