Construction delay disputes are rarely straightforward. A project may finish months behind schedule, but that fact alone does not reveal which event caused the critical delay, which party bore the relevant risk, or what remedy should follow. The contractor may claim an extension of time and prolongation costs, while the employer seeks liquidated damages for the very same period. In arbitration, the dispute often becomes even more complex, as each side may rely on a different programme, a different delay analysis methodology and a different interpretation of the governing law.1
The problem is most difficult when employer-risk and contractor-risk events overlap. This is called concurrent delay. Although concurrency is cited in many major construction disputes, genuine concurrent delay is rare. Modern delay analysis often shows that events overlapped in time but did not both delay completion or that one event was clearly more causative. Many such disputes are resolved in confidential
