Four disciplines. One team.
Outputs, not hours.
We deploy highly integrated teams across delay, quantum, technical, and advisory disciplines. No siloed departments. Just coordinated forensic expertise engineered to resolve your dispute.
Delay
- —Forensic retrospective delay analysis
- —Time Impact Analysis (TIA)
- —Windows analysis and As-Planned vs As-Built
- —Critical path interrogation and narrative
- —NEC3/NEC4 compensation event assessment
- —Narratives that survive cross-examination
The data indicates the critical path shifted at event 47. The contractor’s narrative fails to account for concurrent delay between weeks 38 and 52. Our analysis identifies the point of divergence.
Tools:Primavera P6, Asta Powerproject, Microsoft Project plus proprietary schedule interrogation tools.
Fragnets inserted for Employer Risk Events 14-19 demonstrate that while 22 days of project float were consumed, the critical path remained completely unbreached. The contractor’s theoretical 3-week Extension of Time (EoT) claim fails against native schedule logic.
Quantum
- —Commercial valuation and damages assessment
- —Prolongation cost analysis (site and head office overheads)
- —Disruption and loss of productivity quantification
- —Final account preparation and defence
- —Forensic cost modelling
- —Critique of opposing quantum positions
The claimed prolongation of £12.4m includes £3.1m of costs that pre-date the delay event. The head office overhead calculation applies Hudson where Emden is the appropriate formula. The true exposure is £7.8m.
Tools:Forensic cost models built in Microsoft Excel with full audit trails. BCIS rates, measured mile, Hudson and Emden applied to instruction. Every figure traceable to source.
The £4.2m disruption claim relies on theoretical industry indices. By ingesting turnstile data and daily allocation sheets, we established an unimpacted 'measured mile' of 0.85 hrs/unit. Applying actual achieved site productivity rates reduces the substantiated quantum to £1.1m.
Technical
- —Root cause and failure mode analysis
- —Defect investigation and causation
- —Design liability assessment
- —Building Safety Act remediation claims
- —Fire safety and cladding disputes
- —Specification compliance review
The water ingress at Level 14 is attributable to a design deficiency at the curtain wall interface, not workmanship. The specification was ambiguous at clause 4.3.2. The contractor relied on the design intent drawing, which omitted the secondary seal detail.
Tools:Intrusive survey coordination, thermal imaging, and laboratory testing supported by proprietary defect mapping tools that cross-reference as-built records against specification requirements.
Water ingress at Level 14 isolated. Forensic dissection of the curtain wall interface reveals the secondary seal detail was omitted from the Tier 2 contractor's shop drawings. The specification at clause 4.3.2 was ambiguous, but RFI logs confirm the Architect approved the omission. Primary causation: Design liability, not site workmanship.
Advisory
- —Strategy, merits assessment, adjudication support
- —Rapid evidence structuring
- —Evidence architecture and document control
- —Referral and response structuring
- —Expert reports (CPR Part 35 compliant)
- —Cross-examination readiness and testimony
Opponent’s £14.2m claim and 12,000 unstructured project records ingested. Evidence structuring isolates a systemic failure to serve condition precedent notices under Clause 61.3. Merits pivot confirmed within 72 hours.
Tools:Proprietary document ingestion compresses weeks of review into days.
Opponent’s £14.2m claim and 12,000 unstructured project records ingested. Rapid evidence structuring isolates a systemic failure by the contractor to serve condition precedent notices under Clause 61.3. Merits assessment confirms 82% of the claim is procedurally barred. Strategy pivot: Reject commercial settlement. Offensive adjudication triggered to strike out the defective heads of claim.
Discuss your position
Direct access to a partner. No intermediaries.