Construction delay cases are often framed as battles between competing “methodologies”—windows, time impact, as-planned vs. as-built, and others. But courts consistently reject the notion that any one methodology is inherently superior. Instead, decisions turn on whether the expert’s analysis is grounded in project facts, logically applied, and understandable to the decision-maker.
This session challenges the industry’s fixation on methodology labels and instead focuses on what actually wins cases. Drawing on recent case law and real-world project experience, the panel will demonstrate how courts evaluate schedule analyses, why some fail despite technical sophistication, and how practitioners can develop and present analyses that are both credible and persuasive.
Attendees will leave with practical strategies to improve the effectiveness of schedule analyses—from project documentation through expert presentation—while avoiding common pitfalls that undermine credibility.
