Skip to main content
Disruption, Delay & Acceleration Claim

Island Gold Mine Mill Expansion — Disruption, Delay & Acceleration

Sector: Mining & Resources Project: Island Gold Mine, Dubreuilville, Ontario Method: As-Planned vs As-Built, impacted baseline with cumulative carry-through Standard: AACE RP 29R-03 & 25R-03
Event-Based
Every Delay Event Quantified Individually
As-Built
Impacted-Baseline Method
Self-Perform
Contractor Scope
Exhibit-Backed
Quantified Position Paper

The Challenge

The self-perform contractor was executing the mill-expansion scope at the Island Gold Mine, in Dubreuilville, Ontario, under a unit-rate contract with owner Alamos Gold. Through the work the sequence was repeatedly interrupted: owner-directed changes, out-of-sequence direction, trade-stacking, and stop-start mobilizations, layered with acceleration pressure. The impacts did not present as clean, discrete critical-path delays. They accumulated as productivity loss across the work fronts, which a conventional two-snapshot CPM analysis does not capture on its own.

The contract was terminated for convenience at partial completion. That raised the evidentiary bar: with no completed as-built to point to, the claim had to be proved from the contemporaneous record, event by event.

How the Analysis Was Built

Working in-house for the self-perform contractor, CPP’s principal built a contractor-side disruption, delay and acceleration analysis on the contemporaneous project record. Rather than a windows analysis, the work used an as-planned-versus-as-built comparison with an event-by-event impacted baseline and cumulative carry-through, chosen so that contractor-caused and owner-caused impacts could be separated cleanly across the life of the job. Method selection followed the record: with the job stopped mid-course and no completed as-built, the selection factors in AACE RP 29R-03 point to an event-based approach rather than a windows analysis.

  • Established the as-planned baseline from the post-tender-clarification schedule and reconstructed the as-built from the contemporaneous record
  • Identified and characterized each discrete delay and disruption event across successive forensic passes
  • Built an event-by-event impacted baseline, carrying each event's effect forward cumulatively so downstream impact was neither lost nor double-counted
  • Separated contractor-responsible from owner-responsible impact at each event, rather than presenting a single undifferentiated number
  • Ingested and threaded the correspondence record (emails, RFIs, change directives, daily logs) to tie each event to its documentary trigger
  • Quantified the disruption and acceleration exposure, with the productivity-loss component measured against unimpacted reference work
  • Assembled a quantified, exhibit-backed position paper: delay register, cause-and-effect Gantt charts, and Primavera P6 XER files formatted for direct import

Tools Deployed

Disruption Claim Engine — automated EML/PDF/XER parsing with correspondence threading and event chronology
Measured Mile Productivity Module — baseline vs. impacted period comparison with crew-level output tracking
Forensic Claims Engine — exhibit cross-referencing and draft-narrative assembly from the analyst's findings, verified before adoption
Claim Workbench — slip-to-evidence cross-reference; candidate recurring-actor surfacing across the correspondence thread, reviewed against the record

The Outcome

The contractor's leadership received a quantified, exhibit-backed position paper in which every impact was tied to the contemporaneous record and separated by responsibility. What had been a general sense of being disrupted and pushed became a structured claim: named events, a documented cause for each, and a defensible basis for the time and cost consequences.

Because the impact was carried through cumulatively rather than assessed one snapshot at a time, the analysis held together on a job that was stopped mid-course, where a completed as-built was never going to exist.

The Result

Status: confidential. The position paper was delivered to the contractor's leadership for negotiation with the owner. The specific quantum and the current status of the matter are confidential.

Productivity loss you can't pin down?

If a project is bleeding hours and no one can tie the losses to specific causative events, that's exactly the work this method was built for, on either side of the dispute. Fixed-fee preliminary assessment in two weeks. No hourly burn.

Talk to CPP Or email us directly →