When should you seek delay expert input?
Consider an initial discussion when a delay issue becomes material to a claim or dispute, when competing programme analyses need to be tested, or when a forthcoming report or hearing creates a defined deadline. An early discussion helps establish whether the available information is sufficient and what further records may be needed.
Start by explaining the decision the analysis must inform. Reviewing an extension-of-time submission, assessing a competing explanation of critical delay and preparing independent expert evidence are different tasks. They can require different scopes, levels of detail and deliverables.
What should you look for in a delay expert?
Ask about relevant project sectors, practical programming experience, the issues previously examined and the role performed on comparable assignments. Distinguish project delivery and claims advisory roles from independent expert witness appointments.
Discuss the proposed expert’s availability, ability to explain complex programme issues and approach to incomplete or conflicting records. Where testimony may be required, ask about experience of reports, questions from other experts and oral evidence. An independent assessment may identify weaknesses as well as strengths in the position being advanced.
What should your initial enquiry contain?
Begin with a short, non-confidential outline. Agree the information needed for conflict checks before sending detailed project documents.
- The matter: project type, location and a short description of the delay issue.
- The participants: the parties and other organisations needed for appropriate conflict checks, through an agreed channel.
- The questions: what needs to be assessed and where the parties’ positions differ.
- The timetable: known submission, meeting or hearing dates.
- The records: an overview of programmes, progress records and correspondence available.
- The proposed role: an initial review, a detailed analysis, a report or expert witness evidence.
Do not send privileged or confidential project records with the initial website enquiry. Appropriate conflict, confidentiality and engagement arrangements should be confirmed first.
Which project records are useful?
A document index is a useful starting point. It should identify what is available, the period covered and any known gaps. Retain original files and their dates, with a clear distinction between contemporary records and later summaries.
| Record group | What to identify |
|---|---|
| Programmes | Baseline and updated programmes, native files where available, calendars, logic and accompanying narratives. |
| Progress | Site diaries, progress reports, photographs, quantities and recorded start or finish dates. |
| Events and correspondence | Instructions, notices, RFIs, design releases, access records and relevant meeting minutes. |
| Contract and claims | Relevant contract documents, milestones, submissions, responses and agreed changes. |
| Existing analyses | Earlier reports, calculations and the records or assumptions on which they rely. |
For example, an instruction issued in March and work finishing in June do not, by themselves, explain the effect on overall completion. The review also needs to consider the affected activities, actual progress, programme logic and other relevant events.
Read the guide to organising records for an extension-of-time claim →
How should scope and deliverables be agreed?
Define the questions, the period and works under review, the available evidence and any assumptions that require testing. Identify the intended audience and whether the output is an initial assessment, a detailed report, a response to another analysis or evidence for proceedings.
Agree the timetable, fees, responsibilities for supplying records and the process for dealing with further questions or documents. Make any limits on the initial review explicit so that its conclusions are not used beyond their intended scope.
The analytical method should suit the questions, the records and the circumstances of the project. Discuss the reasons for the proposed approach and the limitations of the available information. Our guide to choosing a delay analysis method introduces the main considerations.
How can you make the review more effective?
Provide a balanced record collection, including material that may challenge the initial explanation. Keep factual records separate from commentary, maintain consistent document references and identify corrections rather than silently replacing earlier information.
Agree how questions will be raised and answered. A concise issues list and a record of outstanding information can help keep the work focused as the evidence develops. Where assumptions are necessary, make them visible and revisit them when further records become available.
FPEP uses project records and programme analysis to develop clear, traceable findings. E1 TRACE can support record organisation and source-linked reporting; professional judgement remains central to the assessment.
Before the first discussion
Have a short outline of the matter, the key questions, the required dates and an overview of the records ready. Identify who will coordinate instructions and document access. This provides a useful basis for discussing suitability, availability and the proposed scope.