---

First published: (2024) 40 Const. L.J., Issue 8 © 2024 Thomson Reuters and Contributors

Introduction and background

Complex construction projects involve various risks and uncertainty due to the complexity of the design, the constructability of the scope, the defined time frames, and the interfaces between various aspects and areas of work. Such projects also typically have other significant features such as (a) project completion within specified time(s), (b) constraints on the works, and (c) requirements for input from a variety of stakeholders. For these reasons, a programme of works showing a road map of how the project works are intended to be carried out from start to end is required for a well-thought-out project. Such an initial programme of work is referred to as the Baseline Programme or an As-Planned Programme. 

The Baseline Programme is generally used for the purposes of progress monitoring, financial control, timing of cooperation and analysis of delay. This article relates to the ‘analysis of delay’ purpose only. Quantification of project delays is a thorny issue. The Baseline Programme is often used as a reference point against which to measure the project’s critical delays. This article discusses various factors that undermine a Baseline Programme from its use as a tool to measure critical delay.

Whilst this article references a number of reported judgments from a number of court cases, it does not purport to offer a legal analysis. Nevertheless, and primarily for convenience, the article will typically use the FIDIC conditions of contract, Red Book 2017, for illustration purpose.

Many construction projects suffer delays that expose a contractor to the risk of the employer levying delay or liquidated damages.^[1]For example, Sub-Clause 8.8 of FIDIC Red Book 2017 refers. A contractor would raise a claim for an extension of time (EOT) to protect itself from such damages. An EOT claim seeks to substantiate critical delays caused by the events, which entitles the contractor to an EOT. Two key questions are of recurring importance with an EOT claim: (1) who is responsible for the critical delay? and (2) what is the extent of the critical delay?

The first question is typically answered by reference to express and implied terms of contract, matters which are beyond the scope of this article.

In construction projects, critical delay usually has significant financial consequences: ‘time is money’. Thus, the measurement of critical delay is likely to be a particular focus of attention for the parties to the contract.

Commonly, six methods are used for the measurement of critical delay.^[2]Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd edition (SCL, February 2017), at para 11.4. The six methods of analysis are (1) Impacted as planned (2) Time impact (3) Time slice windows (4) As planned v As built … Continue reading Most of these methods measure critical delay by reference to a Baseline Programme.^[3]For example, out of six methods as stated in footnote above, the Collapsed as built analysis does not measure critical delay by reference to a baseline programme. In other words, most of the delay analysis methods use a Baseline Programme as a ‘tool’ against which to measure critical delay. It thus can readily be seen that, before the Baseline ‘schedule is accepted as a measurement of time (tool), the reliability of the schedule should be demonstrated’.^[4]B.B. Bramble and M.T. Callahan, Construction Delay Claims, 4th edition (Wolters Kluwer, 2011), page 11-5. If a Baseline Programme is not reliable, the whole exercise of measurement of critical delay can easily be undermined.

Whether a Baseline Programme needs to be formally approved by the employer (or its representative) is usually a question for the express terms of contract. Reliability of a baseline programme, however, may be an entirely different matter, not established simply because it has been approved by the parties.^[5]B.B. Bramble and M.T. Callahan, Construction Delay Claims, 4th edition (Wolters Kluwer, 2011), page 11-40. A tribunal court may reject the use of an approved Baseline Programme if it is ‘defective or insufficient to measure a delay.’^[6]Utley-James Inc., (1984).

Instead, the reliability of a Baseline Programme is determined on merit, and typically by reference to three key factors, directed at showing that the Baseline Programme is ‘reasonable, realistic and achievable.’^[7]Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd edition (SCL, February 2017), para 1.57, 4.8(b), 11.6(a, b &c). In Castle Trustee,^[8]Castle Trustee v Bombay Palace Restaurant [2018] EWHC 1602 at para 73.

“The process of establishing a Baseline Programme includes verifying that the planned programme was realistic and achievable, otherwise it provides no basis from which to assess the effect of delay.”

Mrs. Justice Jefford stated

Thus, a Baseline Programme should aim to:

(a) be reasonable: by realistically reflecting the scope of work and relevant contractual obligations, including the activities of other parties where they are part of the broader project;
(b) be realistic: by showing the intended real sequence of works and related activities; and
(c) be achievable: by including workable durations of activities and risks.

Baseline Programme to be Reasonable

A Baseline Programme is likely to be reasonable if it validly and realistically extends to cover the whole scope of work and relevant contractual obligations relating to the performance of the works.

Valid

Demonstrating the validity of a Baseline Programme in which all of the works are included is an important first step in carrying out a valid delay analysis.

In Grupo Hotelero,^[9]Grupo Hotelero v Carey Value SL [2013] EWHC 1039 (Comm) at para 776. both programming experts disagreed on which programme of work should act as a Baseline Programme, and Mr. Justice Blair decided the point as follows:

“Both experts agreed on the significance of a baseline programme, but disagreed on which programme should be used. I am satisfied that Mr. Saulsbury (Claimant’s programming expert) was right to treat IDOM’s LTP Revision 15 of September 2006 as the correct baseline programme. The one selected by Mr. Chamberlain (Defendant’s programming expert) was an incomplete draft.”  

By contrast, in Obrascon,^[10]Obrascon v Attorney General for Gibraltar [2014] EWHC 1028 at para 273. both programming experts agreed on a Baseline Programme:

“The programming experts have proceeded on the basis that OHL’s March 2009 programme (“rev2 planning March 09_v01”) was a suitable baseline programme to compare and analyse progress.” 

In Mega Construction,^[11]29 Feb. Cl. 396 (1993). the court was not impressed with the contractor’s delay expert’s (Mr. Patrick Cumine) analysis because it was not based on the valid Baseline Programme:

“Based on his investigation Mr. Cumine prepared a “construction schedule” bar chart for trial, supposedly based on plaintiff’s as planned bar chart. However, Mr. Cumine did not know if plaintiff’s chart, upon which he based his chart, was the original construction schedule bar chart or a version that had been revised at some unknown later date.”

In addition, a Baseline Programme is valid from the data date^[12]‘A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge’ (PMBOK), 5th edition, 2013, page 563. Data Date is ‘a point in time when the status of the project is recorded’. to the project completion date. Therefore, data date of a valid Baseline Programme should be set at the start date of a project.^[13]AACE Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 (2009) at para 2.1 (B.3). Thus, if the data date of a Baseline Programme is after six months of the start of the project, as was the case in Dobson explained below, the Baseline Programme will be valid from the sixth month. In this scenario, the contractor’s initial intent in respect of work to be carried out during the first six months will not be determined by reference to the Baseline Programme. 

Original scope

A Baseline Programme must include the full scope of work relating to a contractor’s performance obligations. In other words, a Baseline Program must be a conformed plan for the project works.^[14]AACE Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 (2009) at para 2.1 (B.1). In Edwin J. Dobson Jr. Inc. v Rutgers,^[15]157 N.J. Super. (1978). a Baseline Programme was not complete at the start of the project but evolved during the first six months. Apart from other issues, the contractor did not include procurement of certain material and equipment in the Baseline Programme during the first six months. In Dobson, the court found that ‘it was not until the time of the third update that sufficient information was manifest in the schedule to consider the schedule complete and able to measure delay.’^[16]B.B. Bramble and M.T. Callahan, Construction Delay Claims, 4th edition (Wolters Kluwer, 2011), page 11-33.

An incomplete Baseline Programme is not a satisfactory tool to measure delay simply because it cannot demonstrate how all activities would interact to achieve project completion unless the omitted scope is added to that incomplete baseline programme.^[17]B.B. Bramble and M.T. Callahan, Construction Delay Claims, 4th edition (Wolters Kluwer, 2011), page 11-33.

Contractual obligations

Generally, in a construction contract, an employer has certain obligations to perform so that the contractor can carry out the original works within the specified time. For example, the employer is to give possession of the construction site to a contractor, review/approve the contractor’s submittals (such as shop drawings, materials, method statements and various inspections requests etc.), provide free-issue materials, if any, provide permanent power for testing & commissioning and arrange necessary planning or buildings permits if any.

A reasonable Baseline Programme should include related activities such as those to be performed by the employer.^[18]AACE Recommended Practice No. 91R-16 (2020) at para 2.5. If such activities are not included, a Baseline Programme is likely to be ‘incomplete’. Consequently, it would be difficult to demonstrate how all activities would interact to achieve project completion when such important activities have not been included in the baseline programme.

In substance, identification of the correct version of a Baseline Programme and its validation in respect of its completeness and its compliance with contractual obligations are important steps to ensure that the comparator against which to measure delay is appropriate.

Baseline Programme to be Realistic

A realistic Baseline Programme shows correct logic and the intended sequence of works. The use of doubtful or incorrect logic or sequence of work in a Baseline Programme may seriously impact (a) the activities’ planned dates and so the project completion date and (b) the route or location of the critical path. If planned dates for activities or the route of the critical path in a baseline programme are questionable, it is very likely to undermine the entire delay analysis. Therefore, a realistic baseline programme must accurately reflect both the practical field restraints and the intended sequence of work, as explained in the following paragraphs.  

Logic

Generally, a Baseline Programme has one start and one finish date of a project.^[19]James and Fredric, CPM in Construction Management, 8th edn. (McGraw Hill, 2016), p. 515. ‘Every activity, except the first and the last, must have at least one predecessor and one successor.’^[20]AACE Recommended Practice No. 91R-16 (2020) at para 2.4. All activities between the start and finish date of a project are interconnected with logical relations, which should be practical and realistic.^[21]For various logic links, refer to SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd edition, February 2017, p.66.

Thus, a contractor’s delay claim based on a Baseline Programme containing erroneous logic will likely be denied.^[22]Wickwire, Driscoll, Hurlbut, Groff, ‘Construction Scheduling: Preparation, Liability, and Claims’, 3rd edition (Wolters Kluwer, 2010), p.513.

In City Inn,^[23]City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2008] B.L.R. 269 Lord Drummond Young emphasised the importance of correct logic links between the activities in a programme:

“It is in my opinion clear that such a programme is critically dependent upon the logic links between different activities…I am of opinion that Mr Whitaker [defender’s programming expert] must be correct when he states that an error in one logic link can vitiate the whole programme, and errors in a number of links will almost inevitably vitiate the programme…Mr Lowe [pursuer’s programming expert] was asked about the link between line 17 and line 57…In cross-examination he had accepted that the link should have been start-start rather finish-finish, and accepted that that could render line 17 non-critical…”^[24]City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2008] B.L.R. 269 at [38].

Indeed, a single error in logic link can undermine the use of a Baseline Programme. Thus, in RGB P&C,^[25]RGB v Victory House [2019] EWHC 1188 at para 44. Ms. Helen Turner (RGB/claimant’s delay expert) made substantial changes to the logic links in a baseline programme with the aim to correct it. Mrs. Justice Jefford DBE reviewing an adjudicator’s decision stated as follows:  

“…if he (the adjudicator, Dr Franco Mastrandrea) had decided that even a single Turner logic link was invalid, he would either have had to reject the baseline programme and the RGB claim in its entirety or go through a process of notifying the parties of the view he had formed and seeking further submissions.” 

A CPM network calculates activities’ start date, finish date, and float using activity durations and logic links. A network-calculated plan would be incorrect if there is a flaw in logic relations. Reliance on such dates in a delay analysis would also be questionable.

Dubious logic may also be introduced into a Baseline Programme by placing a constraint on an activity.^[26]For example, mandatory start constraint, mandatory finish constraint, start not earlier than constraint, start not later than constraint, finish not earlier than constraint, finish not later than … Continue reading ‘As constraints can override the pure-logical relationships between the activities, their use is discouraged in the Baseline Schedule unless specifically required by contract.’^[27]AACE Recommended Practice No. 78R-13 (2014) at page 14. A realistic Baseline Programme is free of constraints unless such restraints are a contractual requirement by the contract^[28]AACE Recommended Practice No. 78R-13 (2014) at page 14. and/or the restraints are practical.^[29]Such as access constraint, climate constraint etc.

A date constraint imposed on a Baseline Programme is not only different from the CPM network-calculated date but may also adversely impact its successor activities. For example, imposing a start date of November 12 on an activity with a network-calculated start date of October 19 will delay the activity start until the imposed date. All succeeding activities in the network would also be delayed.^[30]Example is taken from Bramble and Callahan, Construction Delay Claims, 4th edition, 2011, page 11-55.

In Ernst,^[31]476 F. Supp. 729 (W.D. Pa. 1979). US court rejected a Baseline Programme due to many reasons, and one of the reasons was ‘that a certain activity was available (to work) on December 30, when in fact, its restraint had not been released until February 5 of the next year’^[32]M.T. Callahan and H.M. Hohns, Construction Schedules, 4th edition (Juris, 2011), p. 3-102. which produced planned dates that were not realistic.

Sequence of work

Based on logic and activity duration, a CPM network calculates the start/finish dates of all activities of a project and establishes sequences of work. However, a network-calculated sequence of work can be unrealistic.

For example, in Joseph E. Bennett Co.,^[33]72-1 BCA 9364 (1972), 43,457. a US case, the court refused to permit a contractor to use a Baseline Programme in establishing government delays due to an unintended sequence of work. The Baseline Programme showed compact fill to be carried out in December, January, February, and March. However, during the trial, the contractor accepted the folly of attempting to place compact fill on frozen ground. In other words, the Baseline Programme did not show the intended realistic sequence of compact fill therefore not a reliable programme.    

Resource levelling

In some cases, logic or sequence of work is governed by resource levelling.^[34]Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd edition (SCL, February 2017), at p.70. In Utley-James^[35]GSBCA No. 5370, 85-1 BCA, 17,816 (1984). the US court explained the importance of resource levelling in the perspective of the actual/intended sequence of work:

“Another concept of importance to CPM scheduling is resource levelling, also called resource loading. Consider, for example, the interior finish work in an office tower like the McNamara Building. The placing of each floor slab is logically restrained by the placing of the slab beneath it, but that is not necessarily true of interior finish work. There is no reason in theory why a carpeting contractor could not come in and carpet every floor of the building on the same day. But there are a variety of reasons why that is not done, and one of the principal reasons is that it makes no sense to supply that much material and that many workers to do all the floors at once when the work can be sequenced with all sorts of other work and handled over a convenient period of time with a suitably sized work force. To give an accurate indication of the actual planned job schedule, a CPM schedule must take resource levelling into account. Otherwise it could, for example, depict the same early finish date for all carpet work, even though the carpet work itself is actually going to be performed in a phased sequence, floor by floor.”      

Similarly, in Neal & Co. v United States^[36]36 Fed. Cl. 600 (1996). a contractor was required to construct 30 individual houses on a hill. The contractor’s original plan for the project was to treat the 30 houses like an assembly line, by laying first the foundation for the first house, then the foundation for the second house, and so on, and then having each house followed by the respective other trades (e.g. framing would be next, followed by roofing and so forth). The court criticised the baseline programme as it showed float to some critical-path activities due to a lack of resource constraint:

“The NAS schedule (baseline programme) thus never became a useful planning tool for the contractor. Because it lacked crew constraints, its lacked realistic late start and end dates. Because of the unrealistic late start and end dates, an unrealistic amount of a float appeared for a too-limited number of critical-path items. Framing work, for example, that the contractor, in fact, planned to do immediately after foundation work, was not required, under the approved plan to be finished until very late in the project.”  

The proposed Baseline Programme may fail to include logic links between activities or contain unreasonable lags. Missing links create open-ended activities^[37]Open ended activities are those activities that are without predecessor(s) and/or successor(s). and unreasonable lags create artificial flexibility/float in a programme activity path with no basis. A realistic Baseline Programme should be free of such deficiencies.^[38]AACE Recommended Practice No. 91R-16 (2020) at para 2.4.

In the authors’ opinion, these are significant factors that undermine the use of a Baseline Programme as a tool to measure critical delays simply because it produces anomalous results.^[39]Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd edition (SCL, February 2017), paras 4.9 and 11.2.

Baseline Programme to be Achievable

Activity durations in a Baseline Programme must be practical, include all risks, and should be achievable.

Unrealistic durations

Replacing unrealistic with realistic activity durations may impact the route or location of the critical path. This could render a non-critical activity critical, or vice versa. 

For example,^[40]This example is taken from article ‘The use of critical path method techniques in contract claims’ by Jon M. Wickwire and Richard F. Smith (Public Contract Law Journal, Vol.7, no.1, 1974). a Baseline Programme reflects a critical path through the erection of precast panels on the exterior of a building. However, the contractor discovers that it has grossly overestimated the time required for the erection of the panels. If a reasonable duration is allocated to the erection of the panels, the critical path may instead move to the mechanical rough-in activities during the middle stage of the project. Unrealistic durations or erroneous logic is not only unhelpful but also undermines the value of a Baseline Programme.

In C.H. Leavell & Co.^[41]GSBCA No.2901, 70-2 B.C.A (CCH) 8,437 (1970). a baseline programme included 285 days for ‘mechanical & electrical activities’ (“ME Activity”). ME Activity was delayed by the government. The government contended that 120 days was a reasonable duration for ME Activity. Thus, ME Activity had sufficient float and there was no question of critical delay. However, the contractor argued that the contractor was the one who was required to develop the Baseline Programme; and since there was no contractual requirement to define the durations of the various activities and the fact that Baseline Programme was approved by the government, the duration of ME Activity was 285 days.^[42]M.T. Callahan and H.M. Hohns, Construction Schedules, 4th edition (Juris, 2011), p. 3-106. The Board concluded that the delay analysis was made difficult by the ME Activity and determined its own duration between the two positions by jury verdict.^[43]B.B. Bramble and M.T. Callahan, Construction Delay Claims, 4th edition (Wolters Kluwer, 2011), page 11-48.

The C.H. Leavell & Co. case shows that a wrong activity duration can be a serious defect in a Baseline Programme, and this error cannot be insisted upon simply because it is included in an approved Baseline Programme.

The obverse situation may also apply, and the appropriate duration of an activity may be longer than the baseline duration. For example, a Baseline Programme shows 20,000 m³ of rock excavation to be carried out in a week when it is clearly not possible to achieve that having regard to the site constraints. In circumstances where 10,000 m³ of additional/unforeseeable rock is encountered at the site, the baseline duration for rock excavation must be corrected first before analysing the effect of the additional/unforeseeable rock as per C.H. Leavell & Co. case.

Correcting an unrealistic duration or rate of progress included in a Baseline Programme is important because unrealistic durations or productivity are meaningless as explained by Justice Coulson in Van Oord:^[44]Van Oord v Allseas UK [2015] EWHC 3074 at para 365.

“I have already referred to the problems with welding. It was OSR’s (claimant’s) case that ten welds a day could have been performed, although this rate of progress did not differentiate between automatic welds and the very different (and much slower) manual welds. To that extent, therefore, the ten welds a day baseline was meaningless.”

Risks

All performance risks must be included within an activity duration. If not, the baseline activity duration would be neither realistic nor achievable regardless of other factors.

In the authors’ opinion, a baseline activity duration that is unrealistic and unachievable must be corrected. If correcting the baseline duration results in slippage of the project completion date beyond the original completion date, then the contractor must adjust the logic, and adjust/reduce the successor activities’ durations by either changing the sequence of work or providing for the employment of additional resources to ensure that project is completed by the original completion date; otherwise, the baseline programme will not properly reflect the contractor’s contractual obligations.  

What to do if a Baseline Programme of works is not reliable

A CPM network or a Baseline Programme is as good as the information on which it is based.^[45]Lane-Verdugo. ASBCA Nos. 16,327 (1973); J.E. Bennett Co. GSBCA No. 2362 (1972). A reliable Baseline Programme is reasonable, realistic, and achievable as explained above. In case a Baseline Programme is not reliable then the underlying information^[46]Such as original scope of work, contractual responsibilities, logic, constraints, sequence of work, resource levelling, duration and risks etc. must be corrected as explained by Mrs. Justice Jefford DBE in Castle Trustee:^[47]Castle Trustee v Bombay Palace Restaurant [2018] EWHC 1602 at para 73.

“If the programme in use was, in fact, unrealistic, then one of the exercises a delay expert may properly undertake is the establishment of a credible programme, that is one that sets out what could have been done (rather than the recorded intent).”

Changes to the underlying information in a Baseline Programme being after-the-fact must be adequately explained. In RGB P&C,^[48]RGB v Victory House [2019] EWHC 1188 at para 31. the adjudicator (Dr. Franco Mastrandrea), with whom Mrs. Justice Jefford DBE agreed, did not accept the programming expert’s suggested changes to the logic link in a Baseline Programme because the changes ‘had not been adequately explained and lacked rigour’. For example, Dr Franco Mastrandrea’ following two questions, among others, were not properly answered by the contractor’s programming expert:

“Regarding the schedule of additional successor logic, please explain in each instance why a particular successor activity has been selected and why the particular type of logic link with lag (when included) is appropriate.

……Other than closing ‘open ends’, does Appendix 4 include logic changes to prevent start/finish dates changing when rescheduling; if so, what changes have been made in this respect.”^[49]RGB v Victory House [2019] EWHC 1188 at para 26.

In a delay claim, a Baseline Programme is a ‘foundation of a contractor’s case.’^[50]Commentary by editors of Building Law Report, RGB P&C v Victory House [2019] BLR 465. A Baseline Programme must be reasonable, realistic, and achievable if it is to be used as a tool to measure critical delay. Therefore, in the authors’ opinion, a Baseline Programme must be validated as an appropriate foundation for a contractor’s delay case and to avoid the Programme being subjected to criticism that may require it to be corrected in a formal dispute resolution process. This may undermine the contractor’s case, which could, in turn, affect the tribunal’s final decision. If a Baseline Programme is not reliable, the contractor is at risk of having its delay claim rejected outright.^[51]RGB v Victory House [2019] EWHC 1188 at para 44.

In summary, a baseline programme should, by reference to contract scope and terms and related activities be reasonable, comprehensive, complete, extend to all works and obligations and be arranged in a logical and workable sequence with realistic durations.

What if there is no Baseline Programme of works

If there is no Baseline Programme of works, a detailed factual investigation will be needed to ascertain:

(a) the contractor’s intent;
(b) reasonableness of the intended sequence of work, activities durations and logic links; and
(c) any other matter, such as cooperation, without which a contract cannot be performed. 

Generally, a factual investigation is carried out by reviewing and analysing:

(a) documentary evidence;
(b) the evidence of witnesses of fact. It should be borne in mind in this context that factual investigation and cross-examination of the facts (or witnesses of facts) is a costly exercise;
(c) industry standards; and
(d) expert opinions on the given facts  

Conclusion and summary

Just as we would prepare a ‘to-do’ list in our day-to-day lives, a programme of work provides a list, sequence, and duration of activities to be carried out on a construction project. The initial programme of works that shows a road map of how the project works is intended to be carried out from start to end is generally known as a Baseline Programme or an As-Planned Programme.

A Baseline Programme serves many useful purposes including project delay analysis. Carrying out a proper delay analysis in relation to an extension of time claim for a construction project, is extremely difficult, if not impossible, without a Baseline Programme. Put simply, a Baseline Programme is a tool used to measure project critical delays.

The use of a Baseline Programme as a tool to measure critical delays is undermined if the programme is not reasonable, realistic and achievable. A Baseline Programme is:

(a) reasonable if it includes the original scope of work and all contractual obligations;
(b) realistic if it shows the intended sequence of work; and
(c) achievable if it includes workable durations of activities and risks.       

If a Baseline Programme does not exist or if the Baseline Programme is not reliable, a detailed investigation will need to be carried out to ascertain the contractor’s intent and reasonableness of the intended sequence of work/activities duration/logic links.

In summary, a credible and reliable Baseline Programme not only helps in executing the works in a planned manner but also serves as a tool to measure project critical delay. It is, therefore, prudent and likely to be efficient to invest in creating a credible and reliable Baseline Programme detailing realistically the intended sequence of original works. An unreasonable/unrealistic/unachievable Baseline Programme is unhelpful and may be required to be corrected in a formal dispute process. This may be very expensive and, more importantly, will undermine the contractor’s case.

* The authors acknowledge the guidance and review of the article by Dr. Franco Mastrandrea, Partner, HKA.

About the Authors

Jad I. Chouman has over 15 years’ experience in construction claims and disputes, possesses a master’s degree in Infrastructure Engineering from Tufts University, and is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He has extensive experience in the preparation and assessment of delay and disruption claims, forensic investigation and litigation support services. Jad has analysed and evaluated complex delay and disruption claims considering owner and contractor generated delays and utilising various critical path methods to identify the extent and causes of delay.

Husam Gawish has more than 25 years of diverse engineering, claims, project management and business development & marketing experience gained through working on a wide range of global projects across several industry sectors, including infrastructure, power generation, buildings and oil and gas. Husam has a strong technical background and extensive commercial and contractual experience. 

Muhammad Imran Chaudhary is a Civil Engineer with more than 25 years’ experience in contract administration, delay analysis, quantum and arbitration in the construction of hydraulic dams, power stations, tunnels, airports, oil & gas, buildings, roads & highways, industrial warehouses, barrages, and diaphragm wall projects.