Resolving Schedule Delay Claims with Forensic Analysis




CPM Network Schedule, Critical Path, Critical Activities, Positive Float, Negative Float, Predecessors, Successors, Activity Relationships, Resource Loading, Activities, Submittals, Concurrent Delays, Procurement, Logic, Constraints, Durations, Earned Value, Status, Progress, Critical Path Method, network schedule, forensic engineering


This paper demonstrates how the principals of forensic engineering can be applied to evaluation of schedules, daily diaries, status reports, meeting notes, and other project documentation to determine why delays occur on a project and which parties are responsible for delays. To understand the actual project history, the forensic engineer should conduct a thorough and fair evaluation of all available project documentation to understand the contractual requirements, project milestones, effects of changes, magnitude of delays to the Critical Path, and the basis of the delay claim dispute. The forensic engineer should have sufficient knowledge and experience with project planning, scheduling, and cost estimating to understand the technical basis of the project schedule. He or she must also evaluate and understand the schedule resource loading methodology, schedule logic structure, validity of the activity durations, actual sequence of events, and the material issues that affected the Critical Path. Use of the original planning software is usually necessary as well. The forensic engineer should conduct an impartial technical evaluation that addresses the important and material issues so responsibility for the delays can be determined and proven with a reasonable degree of certainty to resolve the dispute fairly.




How to Cite

Stall, Michael. 2022. “Resolving Schedule Delay Claims With Forensic Analysis”. Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers 39 (1):47-56.