Disruption and prolongation claims

Productivity and prolongation analysis grounded in project records.

Assess inefficient working, resource impacts and extended project cost without confusing disruption, delay and prolongation.
Overview

Time and productivity impacts must be separated before they can be valued.

Disruption concerns loss of productivity, while prolongation concerns the cost of remaining on the project longer. Either may occur without proving the other.

A defensible assessment selects the best available comparison, tests data consistency, considers alternative causes and explains the bridge from operational impact to claimed cost.

Scope of support

Focused analysis across the issues that matter.

Measured-mile analysis
Earned-hours and productivity trend analysis
Resource and manpower assessment
Work-area and trade comparison
Cumulative-impact review
Prolongation-period definition
Site-overhead and time-related cost interface
Alternative-cause and contractor-risk testing
Typical engagements

Flexible support for a defined decision or workstream.

Measured-mile assessment
Review of a productivity claim
Prolongation-period analysis
Support to quantum and legal teams
Deliverables

Clear outputs designed for their intended audience.

Disruption analysis report
Measured-mile model
Productivity exhibits
Prolongation-period assessment
Cause-and-effect matrix
Claim review memorandum
Negotiation presentation
How the work is approached

A structured and auditable process.

01

Define the alleged disrupted work and period.

02

Assess data quality and select comparison periods.

03

Normalise scope, conditions and resource inputs.

04

Quantify productivity difference and test competing causes.

05

Separate disruption from critical delay and prolongation.

06

Present calculations with transparent assumptions.

Frequently asked questions

Practical answers before the engagement begins.

Is a measured mile always required?
No, although a reliable measured mile is often persuasive. Where no suitable unaffected period exists, other project-specific or industry-supported approaches may be considered with clear limitations.
Can total cost prove disruption?
A total-cost approach is generally vulnerable unless strict prerequisites are satisfied. More focused cause-and-effect and productivity evidence is usually preferable.
Does an EOT prove prolongation entitlement?
Not automatically. The compensable period, contractual risk allocation and actual additional cost still require assessment.
Discuss a matter

Clear advice starts with understanding the issue.

Contact Constructive Advisory to discuss a construction claim, delay issue, programme review, dispute-support requirement or potential collaboration.