Pros and Cons of Various Methods of Forensic Delay Analysis

When it comes to construction projects, delays are a common problem. Forensic delays can often occur in construction projects too. Fortunately, numerous methods are available to analyze these forensic delays.

Choosing a suitable technique for your project’s situation can be a tough call. But hiring an expert can make this process easier for you. But before you do so, it’s best to know the pros and cons of each forensic delay analysis method.

Let’s look at a few methods and their pros and cons.

As-Planned vs. As-Built Method

Pros

  • Amongst all the various Forensic delay analysis expert witness San Diego, this method is the easiest to conduct.
  • The As-Planned vs. As-Built method is easy to understand and can be persuasive in numerous ways.
  • The As-Planned vs. As-Built method is suitable for limited or restricted data since the results are accurate.

Cons

  • The As-Planned vs. As-Built method is prone to manipulation through the selection of as-built data.
  • Most courts don’t accept the As-Planned vs. As-Built, and it doesn’t consider any concurrent delays.
  • Unfortunately, this method isn’t apt for complicated or differently built projects.

Time-Impact Analysis

Construction workers on a construction site

Pros

  • The time-impact analysis is suitable for complex and tricky projects.
  • The time-impact analysis is accepted by courts too.
  • This method analyzes data extensively and measures causations, delays, and evolving delays too.

Cons

  • Unfortunately, time-impact analysis is prone to inaccuracy risks with CPM updates.
  • This type of forensic delay analysis method isn’t reasonable or cost-effective at all.
  • Time-impact analyses aren’t good with concurrent delays.

Collapsed As-Built Method

Pros

  • This analysis method is easy to present and understand with a “but for” analysis approach.
  • Collapsed As-Built method tentatively measures concurrent delays by individual “collapse runs” for owner and contractor delays.
  • The collapsed as-built method offers documented substantiation of causation.

Cons

· Reconstructing an as-built schedule is time-consuming and expensive. This method may often be considered as after-the-fact analysis.

· Not many courts or agencies accept this method.

· This method is prone to manipulation.

· The method requires significant and evidentiary decision-making by analysts.

Visit HPM Consultants for Delay Claim Analysis Services

If you’re looking for professional forensic delay analysis, consider HPM Consultants.

HPM Consultants offers the best construction Delay Claim Analysis Services Orange County in the US. Whether you’re an owner or a construction company, their team uses various methods to determine construction delays.

Visit their website to get in touch with them.

Categories: Construction

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.