The construction industry, a cornerstone of economic growth, is facing a troubling surge in disputes. In Australia, disputes are particularly acute in large infrastructure projects, especially in energy and tunneling, where complexities and cost overruns often lead to contention.

In recent years, the construction industry in Australia has witnessed a troubling increase in disputes, driven by a mix of economic pressures, regulatory challenges, and operational inefficiencies.

Forensic quantity surveyors can support claims preparation in their role as dirty experts, diving deep into the details and collaborating with lawyers to assemble and analyse evidence that forms the foundation of a robust claim.

Disruption claims provide a pathway for contractors to recover losses caused by inefficiencies on a project. For such claims to succeed, they must adhere to the "common-sense" approach.

A disruption claim aims to show a decrease in productivity, resulting in additional costs that wouldn't have occurred without the disruptive events the Employer causes.

When disputes occur, immediate and effective action is crucial to minimize their impact on costs, timelines, and relationships between stakeholders.

With nearly 50% of buildings in the Cladding Rectification Program identified as having additional non-cladding defects, the financial burden on property owners has been significant.

Engaging an expert may be one of the most valuable decisions Employers or Contractors may make but how exactly can an expert help and when should they be engaged?

A simplistic, retrospective methodology, which in its simplest form compares the as-built program to the planned (baseline) program.

Increasingly, contractors initial claims assessments are reduced to simply checking invoices received from subcontractors (to prove a cost has been incurred) with negotiation limited to the cost of the rates claimed.

Infrastructure, residential, and commercial construction projects can potentially impact natural habitats, affecting flora and fauna.

Tunnelling projects are complicated, and all parties — the customer, EPC contractors and subcontractors — expect the work to be done on-time and on budget but delays and cost overruns happen.

Whether it be assessing insurance claims, variation claims, or the remediation of defective works, a quantum expert is called upon to provide an independent subjective opinion to assist an insurer or a tribunal or, in some cases, to help parties settle a matter outside of formal proceedings.

A lot has already been written about various delay analysis methodologies. The purpose of this article is to summarise the pros and cons of the most commonly accepted methodologies and highlight where they might best be used.

Project teams are often told to keep daily or even hourly records of events that occur on-site if a claim for additional time and cost arises. These records are known as contemporaneous records in that they are ‘recorded’ when the event occurs.

An independent delay expert needs to be impartial when engaged in providing early delay and planning advice, so clients understand their actual liabilities or opportunities.

Prolongation or delay costs must reflect the actual losses incurred by a claimant unless otherwise stated in the contract.

More often than not, claimants derive prolongation costs by determining an average daily rate taken from the preliminaries and/or indirect costs listed in the contract and multiplying that rate by the number of days delay.

Delay analysis is not the “dark art” it is often perceived to be. It is simply how to prove the purported delaying events impact (the cause) on time (the effect). The analysis must provide a clear and succinct distinction of the chain of events that have hindered progress and ultimately caused the delay(s) to completion.

An independent quantum expert needs to be impartial when engaged in providing early quantum advice, so clients understand their actual liabilities or opportunities.

When drafting a quantum and/or delay claim based on several events, claimants commonly use inference rather than causation to build their arguments. This approach is sometimes used by claimants as they tend to focus on the monetary amounts lost and/or the delays they have incurred, rather than identifying causation.