Effective schedule analysis in
construction projects hinges on the discovery and examination of key documents,
which provide insights into project timing, progress, and the causes of delays.
This article identifies the types of discovery (i.e., documentation formally
requested and exchanged between the parties to a dispute) required for a
scheduling or delay expert to provide a robust schedule analysis. The discovery
types are grouped as follows: Category 1: documents related to the timing
of the project; Category 2: documents that corroborate the schedules;
and Category 3: documents that help identify the causal link. The above categories, which are required
irrespective of which schedule analysis method is deployed, are also described in
this article using a hypothetical example of a residential construction
project.
Category 1: Documents Related to Project Timing
Category 1 documents are those
that provide the schedule analyst with an understanding of the planned and
actual timing of the project. The most important documents in Category 1 are contracts,
the baseline or rebaseline schedules, and schedule updates. Other schedules or
timing-related documents may include lookahead schedules and change orders.
The contract(s) will help the
analyst establish the parameters of the schedule analysis, as contracts contain
clauses related to the planned timing for project delivery (represented by a milestone
date or dates), as well as the penalties applicable for failure of the
Contractor to meet the planned completion date (i.e., liquidated damages, or
“LDs”). Additionally, contracts may stipulate the preferred or required
methodology and/or course of action for claims and disputes. Lastly, any
contemporaneous extension of time (“EoT”) requests and awards (possibly
executed change orders) should be requested, as these will provide the analyst
with the updated milestone date(s).
The other documents under
Category 1 are the schedules themselves (baseline, rebaseline, and updates). While
the contract may set out the high-level, planned timeline of the project, the
schedules give the analyst a more detailed understanding of how the planned and
actual sequences evolve over time. Schedules are typically prepared in
Primavera P6 (“.xer” file type) or Microsoft Project (“.mpp” file type) but may
only be available in PDF format. The native schedules are the preferred source
to understand the parties’ contemporaneous intentions, as they enable the
analyst to review and understand logic, criticality, resource information, and much
more information that is not reflected in PDF format.
Other documents which are
commonly produced and may provide additional time-related context are lookahead
schedules and “Level 4” schedules (detailed schedules that depict granular
tasks which are often prepared in Microsoft Excel). While not the primary time-related documents,
these documents provide additional detail and further insight into the parties’
contemporaneous intentions. In summary, Category 1 documents arm the analyst
with key information on the planned and actual timing of the project, and
therefore, are foundational to the schedule analysis.
Example:
To underpin the importance of Category 1 documents, imagine a hypothetical residential construction project. In this hypothetical, the Category 1 documents available are the contract, baseline schedule, and monthly schedule updates. The contract between the Owner and the Contractor provides an original planned completion date of August 14, 2025. Additionally, the baseline and monthly schedule updates indicate that, amongst other activities, the design and construction of the kitchen are on the critical path; the figure below is an excerpt of the baseline schedule (in Primavera P6), showing the design and construction of the kitchen to be critical (see Activity Names “Design Kitchen” and “Construct Kitchen”).
An important aspect of any
schedule analysis is corroborating the schedule to ensure accuracy and
alignment with other contemporaneous records. These corroborating Category 2 documents
include but are not limited to: progress reporting (monthly, weekly, daily),
correspondence, manpower reports, procurement and equipment logs, requests for
information (“RFI”) and logs, shop drawing logs, payment applications, and meeting
minutes.
Typically, the most common
corroborating document type is progress reporting (be it monthly, weekly, or
daily), as these reports often contain granular progress information that assists
in schedule analysis. For instance, the
schedules may contain a summary-level activity titled “Prepare Shop Drawings”;
progress reports may feature charts and tables that show how shop drawings have
and are forecasted to advance, comparisons of the planned and actual production
rates, and other useful information. Typically, these reports are viewed as the
“official” progress information from the Contractor. Additionally, progress
reporting may contain details about labor productivity, manpower, delaying
issues, and more.
Meeting minutes, payment
applications, and other logs may not contain the same types of charts and
tables as progress reports and therefore can also be used to validate and
supplement the schedules. For example, meeting minutes may record the timing of
an owner-directed design change; this information may or may not be recorded in
the schedule updates.
Example:
As explained above, the baseline
schedule showed a single activity for the construction of the kitchen (which
was critical), and the contract indicated the home construction would finish by
August 14, 2025. Below is an example of a daily progress report dated August 15,
2025, which records drywall and tiling are ongoing in the kitchen, after the
project should have finished according to the contract. Also, the daily report highlights issues
related to the tiling.
In this example, by referencing
the daily progress report, the schedule analyst can understand what work
related to the construction of the kitchen is ongoing at a particular date,
which cannot be determined by only examining the schedules (as they only
contain a single activity representing the construction of the kitchen). In
summary, Category 2 documents should always be reviewed to corroborate and
supplement the available schedules.
Category 3: Documents that Establish a Causal Link
A requirement of any schedule delay
analysis is demonstrating the causal link, also referred to as identifying the
“cause” or “causes” of the critical delay that is measured. Documents that help establish a causal link fall
under the purview of Category 3. Causes of delay are unique to the challenges
each construction project faces. Furthermore, unlike Category 1 and 2
documents, which are most likely in the Contractor’s possession, documents
establishing causes of delay may be in the possession of both the Contractor
and the Owner.
While Category 3 documents are unique
to each project, some common examples of documents that describe or explain
contemporaneous causes of delay include notices of delay, contemporaneously
prepared claims, RFIs, potential change orders and executed change orders, Stop
Work Orders, internal and external correspondence related to specific topics, witness
testimony, and QA/QC reports.
Example:
Using the same example home
construction project from above, the available Category 3 documents indicate that
the Owner requested a larger kitchen via an executed change order dated June
14, 2025 (see figure below).
As mentioned previously, the baseline
and schedule updates (Category 1) showed the kitchen design and construction on
the critical path, and daily progress reports (Category 2), which were issued
after the planned project completion date, recorded that the kitchen tiling works
were experiencing extensive delays. Given the timing and scope, this change
order (Category 3) likely explains some of the critical delays to the project.
Conclusion
This article aimed to identify
the types of discovery required for a scheduling or delay expert to complete a
schedule analysis. The discovery types have been grouped into three categories:
documents related to the timing of the project (Category 1), documents that
corroborate the schedules (Category 2), and documents that help identify the
causal link (Category 3). By analyzing these documents, a scheduling expert can
effectively determine the critical path, understand the magnitude of the
delays, and identify the causes of critical delays.
Author Jordan Peponis is a Senior Director in Kroll’s Construction Expert Services practice. Based in Atlanta, Jordan has 13 years of experience in providing consultation on a variety of international and domestic projects. He serves most often as an independent delay expert, providing critical path delay and loss of productivity analyses. Jordan can be contacted at Jordan.Peponis@kroll.com.
