Synthetic Illustration: This case study uses synthetic data engineered to demonstrate CPP methodology. No real client engagement is depicted.

Forensic Delay Analysis

Recreation & Community Centre — Ontario

Sector: Municipal Infrastructure Contract: Stipulated Price Method: Windows Analysis (AACE RP 29R-03, MIP 3.3)

Working Days of Delay

443

Critical Path Drivers

Days of Recovery

6 of 7

Windows w/ Measurable Delay

The Situation

The general contractor on a multi-phase recreation and community centre project was experiencing persistent schedule slippage across multiple work areas. The project completion date had drifted significantly from the original baseline, but the contractor had no clear documentation tying the delays to specific causes or responsible parties.

Without that analysis, pursuing a delay claim felt like a gamble — and doing nothing meant absorbing the costs.

What We Did

Critical Path Partners performed a full contemporaneous windows analysis across 7 analysis periods, parsing 8 schedule updates from the contractor's Primavera P6 data. The analysis followed AACE RP 29R-03 methodology — the industry standard for forensic delay analysis — ensuring the findings would hold up in mediation, arbitration, or litigation.

Ingested and parsed all 8 P6 XER schedule files to reconstruct as-planned, as-built, and interim schedule states
Defined 7 analysis windows aligned with major project milestones and disruption events
Performed critical-path analysis across each window to isolate every CP shift and trace it to the responsible work area
Classified delay drivers per window — distinguishing contractor-responsible from owner / third-party-responsible float consumption
Quantified cumulative entitlement at 85 working days of unmitigated delay across the 7-window chain
Prepared a complete forensic narrative with exhibit cross-references suitable for direct submission

Tools Deployed

Forensic Claims Engine — automated XER parsing, delay-window identification, critical-path tracking

Schedule Health Dashboard — DCMA 14-point assessment of each schedule update

Narrative Generation Engine — exhibit cross-referencing, AACE-compliant report

Windows Analysis Module — per-window CP attribution under AACE MIP 3.3

The Outcome

The analysis revealed 85 working days of cumulative, unmitigated delay with zero recovery across any analysis window. Every delay was traceable to specific work areas and schedule updates — not assumptions or estimates. The contractor received a clear, defensible picture of what happened, when, and why.

Armed with that analysis, they had the documentation needed to pursue a formal Extension of Time claim with confidence, backed by methodology that would withstand independent review.

The Result

Outcome: Confidential. The forensic analysis provided the evidentiary foundation for the contractor's formal Extension of Time claim. The methodology and per-window attribution held through the owner's review process.

Think you might have a viable delay claim?

We offer a fixed-fee preliminary assessment — a straight answer in as little as two weeks. No long-term commitment. No hourly burn. Just a clear picture.

Talk to CPP Or email us directly →