An instrument-based and contract-coordinated approach to selecting accurate, impartial, and acceptable delay assessment techniques

Although the pros and cons of delay analysis methods (DAMs) have been the subject of investigations over the past decades, the appropriateness of DAMs remains at the core of disagreements over delay assessments as experts continue to disagree on the suitability of DAMs, scholars are critical of the existing approaches to the assessment of construction delays, and law courts refuse to deal with this issue while insisting that it is for the parties to agree on those matters in the construction agreements and indicating that DAMs should be harmonised with contracts. However, the actors in the construction sector are heavily reliant on expert advice and use model agreements which do not currently offer delay analysis terms, although contract terms are not only well-established contractual instruments but a prerequisite in such legal systems. While the need for an effective DAM selection model in this context is obvious, such a model has not been offered to date. Instead, guidance is provided on a set of 'endorsed' DAMs, but the current system continues to generate disputes over delay assessments because it fails to offer 'best' or 'good' practice guidance. This paper evaluates published literature and contributes to the fulfilment of this knowledge gap by offering a DAMs Selection Model that is based on six recognised DAMs and is instrument-based, impartial, effective, and coordinated with dispute resolution systems and construction contracts. This model of work is likely to improve the acceptability of DAMs and delay assessments by parties, experts, and law courts.