Construction Claims Support & Expert Services

Roderick Pearson, an expert and experienced practitioner in delay and disruption analysis and project controls, who has prepared and provided expert evidence to support claims and claims defence at arbitration and other dispute resolution proceedings, established this firm in December of 2018.

Roderick has performed cost and schedule analysis demonstrating delay, disruption, acceleration, and performed damage and loss of productivity calculations, as-built schedule reconstruction, issue and entitlement identification during the claims development phase. He has both prepared, and defended against, a variety of claims for contractors, employers and insurance companies. He has extensive work related experience, gained in the Middle East, Europe, UK and North America. He has lead claims and project controls teams. He has technical and commercial experience of most forms of project delivery used in the building, civil works, infrastructure, marine, power, process, oil and gas sectors.

The firm and its associates provide delay, quantum, commercial and project controls support services to clients in the building, civil, power, oil and gas, petrochemical, infrastructure, transport and marine sectors.

Its core services include:

expert services for litigation, arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution;
claims preparation;
claims defence;
delay analysis (forensic planning);
quantum support;
commercial support;
dispute avoidance;
dispute resolution; and
project planning and control.

The firm is familiar and practiced in the use of the main delay analysis techniques, both prospective and retrospective and is conversant and familiar with relevant practice guides, including those of SCL and AACEI.

The firm is experienced in the interpretation and application of most contract forms, including FIDIC, JCT and NEC.

Roderick Pearson has undertaken extensive professional research into the subject of concurrent delay and able to explain this frequently misinterpreted phenomena in simple layman's terms.

A pertinent extract from such research, which distinguishes between true and functional [or non literal] concurrency, appears to the right and this distinction is further elaborated in the contents pages.

This broader non literal more common form of concurrent delay, which does not require competing causes of delay to start and finish at the same time, or to even overlap, is incorporated into this firm's approach to delay analysis.

The firm is familiar with the evolution of concurrent delay and how currently best to interpret it in different jurisdictions, under different contract formats, different project scenarios, and how best to accurately and correctly apportion entitlement to both time and cost.

CONCURRENT DELAY – CLEARING UP THE CONFUSION

Expert commentator John Marrin, in his 2003 paper, stated that definitions [of concurrent delay] are scarce since it is interpreted differently in different quarters.

The Oxford dictionary defines the word ‘concurrent’ as “occurring or operating simultaneously or side by side, or acting in conjunction.”

This definition suggests that concurrent delaying events must be both starting and completing at the same time. This, however, represents true concurrency, as identified by several commentators, including Winter et al. (2011, p. 4), true concurrency was hypothesised by LJ Dyson in Henry Boot v Malmaison Hotel (2002).^[1]

For events to actually start and finish simultaneously, and be truly concurrent, is rare and is not required when assessing whether the event caused concurrent delay. Events can actually overlap or be sequential, to be considered as a cause of concurrent delay. Each must merely be independently capable of causing a similar impact to completion.

This phenomenon is further explained by Marrin (2014, p. 2) and reflected in his 2002 definition:

‘..the expression “concurrent delay” is used to denote a period of project overrun which is caused by two or more effective causes of delay which are of approximate equal causative potency.’

Marrin (2014, p. 2) cites the case of Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine^[2], as evidence that his definition is approved and refers to Furst and Ramsey (2016, note 3, para. 8-025) as evidence that it has been adopted.

Marrin’s definition is consistent with the views of Curtis (2011, p. 6):

..It might be possible to describe events as concurrent in the broad sense that they both possessed a causative influence upon some subsequent event, such as the completion of works, even though they did not overlap in time.

O’Leary, D.J. (2014, p. 2) states that the following definition is often used by English lawyers:

‘A period of project overrun which is caused by two or more effective causes of delay which are of equal causative potency.’

Finally the Society of Construction Law (SCL) (2017, p. 31, paras. 10.7 to 10.11) concur that true concurrency is rare and that a more common usage of the term is when events occur at different times, but their effects are felt at the same time. A view consistent with Marrin.

In America, Long (2016, p. 2 and p. 26) cites AACEI (2011, RP 29R-03) literal theory which distinguishes between literal, or true, concurrency and what it describes as functional concurrency, a phenomena aligned to Marrin’s definition.

The following graphics, from Long (2016 p. 2 and p. 26), demonstrate true and functional concurrency. Graphics

^{^[1]}Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd 70 Con LR 32 (TCC);

^{^[2]}Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services [2011] EWHC 848 (Comm) (11 April 2011).

Forensic Analysis

Provision of Delay Analysis and other forensic support for the preparation of and defence against extension of time claims; also for the assessment of Change Orders.

Learn More