Project Overview
Value: Multi-million pound mixed-use development
Duration: Major project delivered 6 months late
Location: United Kingdom
Resolution Method: Adjudication
The Challenge
Our client, a property developer, faced a complex multi-party dispute involving both their Builder and future Tenants under separate contracts with different delay provisions. This unique situation resulted in three competing delay experts presenting conflicting analyses.
Key complications included:
- Late design information delivery from the project architect
- COVID-19 related material delivery delays
- Contractor resource allocation problems
- Third-party interference issues
- Three different proposed critical paths from competing experts
Our Approach
1. Data Analysis
We conducted a thorough review of contemporaneous project records, including meeting minutes, contractor progress reports and programmes, design correspondence, and progress photographs—which proved particularly valuable for establishing factual timelines.
2. Delay Analysis Method
We performed a retrospective “As Planned vs As Built” Windows Analysis to accurately identify delay periods and their true impact on project completion.
3. ‘Effect & Cause’ Type Investigation
For each identified delay window, we measured the actual delay effect in days and conducted detailed fact-finding to establish clear causation links.
The Technical Challenge
The primary complexity arose from the Contractor’s practice of reporting progress against revised baseline programmes each month, which systematically under-reported delays. Our greatest challenge was disproving the critical path analyses presented by the two opposing delay experts while establishing the validity of our own assessment.
Successful Outcome
- Adjudicator fully accepted our critical path analysis and was in agreement with 78% of our delay measurement
- Final account successfully agreed with Contractor
- Settlement achieved through ADR process
Independent Validation
The Adjudicator specifically endorsed our analysis, noting a clear preference for our assessment methodology and conclusions over competing expert opinions. “I prefer Mr Moreland’s assessment of the ACP in window 3 for a number of reasons…”
Disclaimer: This case study has been anonymized and details modified to protect client confidentiality while preserving the educational and demonstrative value of our work.
This case demonstrates our ability to navigate complex multi-party disputes and deliver results even when facing competing expert opinions and challenging project circumstances.