The third and final instalment of the three-part series ‘Programming and Delay’, written by Core PA Managing Director Grant Axman-Friend for the Society of Construction Law (Singapore), is now available.

Programming and Delay — Article 3 of 3: Briefing the Delay Claim Expert

What the series has covered:

Article 1 focused on the importance of establishing an accepted programme from the outset, ensuring the programme accurately reflects scope dependencies, critical path, assumptions and other key elements that will later matter in delay analysis.

Article 2 examined how projects should be monitored over time against the accepted programme, to track progress, identify deviations early, and maintain records and forecasting that support transparency and accountability.

Final instalment ‘Briefing the Delay Claim Expert’

When delay claims reach the dispute resolution stage, the quality of expert evidence can make or break the case. This third article:

• Explains the difference between engaging an advocate expert versus an independent expert, and the pros and cons of each, depending on whether the expert is working for a contractor, principal or legal party.
• Details how to prepare a proper brief. How specific or how broad the questions should be, what supporting information must accompany the brief, and how clarity of instructions influences the expert’s ability to deliver an opinion.
• Describes the range of delay analysis methodologies and how the available contract provisions, project programmes, and records constrain or support the choice of method.
• Shares practical lessons and recommendations to help clients, contractors, consultants, and legal teams avoid or better manage delay disputes. These include maintaining clear programme requirements, monitoring progress consistently, preserving records (daily reports, photos, native programme files), and being explicit about what information is to be provided to the expert.

Delay claims are often among the most contentious issues in construction and engineering contracts, with significant cost, timing, and reputational implications. Poorly drafted programmes, inadequate monitoring, or insufficient briefing of experts can lead to disputes that are costly, prolonged, and unpredictable. This third article aims to equip stakeholders with the understanding and tools needed to handle these risks.

Key Takeaways from this series:

• Ensure contract documents clearly define the format and content of programmes, including assumptions and base methodologies.
• Monitor progress regularly, at least monthly, against the accepted baseline to identify early warning signs of delay.
• When engaging a delay expert, know whether the role is to advocate or to give an independent opinion, and tailor the brief and supporting documentation accordingly.
• Maintain contemporaneous records, not just progress updates, but diaries, reports, photographs, and native schedule files to support any delay analysis.

The ‘Programming and Delay’ series is especially timely as construction industry stakeholders face increasing pressure to deliver complex projects on time and within budget, and with greater transparency in contract and risk management. Those involved in contracting, project planning, law, and expert reporting will find the full series a valuable references.

Previous articles:

Programming and Delay (Article 1 of 3): Getting to an Accepted Programme

Programming and Delay (Article 2 of 3): Monitoring Project Progress

 Subscribe to our newsletter or follow us on LinkedIn to stay up to date on our latest news.