What is FC International?

FC International offers programme assurance, delay analysis and expert support with guidance for New Zealand project teams across 20 pages.

Forensic Delay Analysis

Overruns become disputes when the cause of delay cannot be evidenced.

Establishing cause, responsibility and criticality from the record.

Request a Confidential Discussion Explore Our Services

The problem

When this service is needed

The causes of delay are rarely self-evident. Concurrent events, excusable and non-excusable delay, disputed critical paths and an incomplete as-built record make it difficult to separate entitlement from assertion. FC International carries out forensic delay analysis for contractors, owners, head contractors and legal teams across New Zealand, establishing what caused the delay, when it occurred and which events affected the critical path, on the programme and contemporaneous record rather than the account of any party.

Typical situations

When a project has overrun and entitlement, liability or quantum are contested; when an extension of time claim has been rejected; when a delay dispute is proceeding to adjudication, arbitration or court; and when a claim is being considered and an impartial view of whether it is worth pursuing is needed before the cost of full analysis is committed.

In practice

Fast Claim Validation

A streamlined approach that allows you to quickly determine whether there is a claim worth pursuing, or if you are defending a claim, you will have quick and accurate results about your clients' position and the further support we can provide.

The lens

What our forensic delay analysis examines

We select the methodology that fits the record and the dispute, not the one that suits a predetermined conclusion, and we state its limitations openly.

The as-planned programme and its reasonableness

Whether the baseline reflects a deliverable sequence and durations, since an unsound baseline undermines any analysis built on it.

The as-built record and contemporaneous documents

Site diaries, progress reporting, instructions, notices and correspondence, tested for consistency and for what they can actually establish.

Events, timing and effect on the critical path

When each delaying event occurred, which activities it affected, and whether it moved completion or was absorbed by float.

Concurrency, pacing and float ownership

Periods where more than one cause operated, who was responsible for each, and how the contract treats critical delay occurring in parallel.

Delay and disruption methodology

Impact as-planned, as-planned versus as-built, collapsed as-built, window or time impact analysis, selected and applied in accordance with the SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol and AACE International recommended practice.

The delay narrative against the evidence

Each factual assertion in the claim tested against the record, so that what is asserted and what can be evidenced are clearly separated.

The output

What you receive from a forensic delay analysis

A defensible analysis of what delayed the works, how long it delayed them, and the evidence each conclusion rests on.

A forensic delay analysis using a stated methodology

The analysis method selected and justified, applied consistently, and set out so that a tribunal or an opposing expert can follow and test it.

Clear findings on causation, criticality and responsibility

Which events caused delay, how much delay each caused, whose risk each fell within, and where concurrency affects the period claimed.

A defensible basis for EOT and prolongation

The programme analysis that an extension of time, prolongation or loss of productivity claim requires, in a form that can be carried into the claim itself.

Programme schedules and a delay chronology

Supporting schedules, window analyses and a chronology tracing each event from the record to its effect on completion.

Evidence suitable for adjudication, arbitration or court

Analysis prepared to evidentiary standards, so it can be relied on in formal proceedings without being rebuilt from the beginning.

An impartial view of the strengths and gaps

A clear statement of where the record supports the position and where it does not, before the position is committed to.

The approach

Our impartial method

We select the methodology that fits the record and the dispute, not the one that suits a predetermined conclusion. Every conclusion is anchored to contemporaneous evidence, and limitations are stated openly. Our analyses are undertaken in accordance with recognised international guidance, including the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol and AACE International recommended practice. The work is led personally by Fouad El Chikhani, a member of the New Zealand Society of Construction Law since 2006, with Technical Director Hani Al Olabi, from our Auckland office, on matters throughout New Zealand. We do not provide legal advice and we do not act as legal advisers; where a matter has legal dimensions, we work alongside your legal team so that our findings can be used in their processes.

Who this is for

Suitable client types

Contractors and delivery teams

Analysis of delay that supports your internal planner and commercial team, and evidence prepared to substantiate entitlement where delay is contested.

Project owners and developers

An impartial view of what delayed the works, so that entitlement and liability are tested against the programme record rather than accepted at face value.

Legal and dispute teams

Technical delay analysis prepared to evidentiary standards, delivered as an impartial report your team can rely on in adjudication, arbitration or litigation.

Consultants and design teams

Analysis where the timing of design development, approvals or information release is central to apportioning delay.

Insurers and sureties

Impartial analysis where a bond, insurance or indemnity matter turns on which events actually delayed the works.

The proof

Selected experience

Civil, Marine & Three Waters

Central Interceptor – delay analysis and risk exposure

Programme-linked risk analysis and forensic delay analysis of the Central Interceptor works, quantifying time exposure and tying delaying events to the critical path.

Delay analysisRisk analysisCritical pathAuckland

Questions

Frequently asked

Which delay analysis method do you use?

We apply the methodology best suited to the nature of the delays, the issues in dispute, and the available project records. That may be impact as-planned, as-planned versus as-built, collapsed as-built, window analysis or time impact analysis. Our analyses follow internationally recognised principles, including the Society of Construction Law (UK) Delay and Disruption Protocol and AACE International Recommended Practices, so that the method, assumptions and conclusions can be followed and tested.

Can your analysis be used in adjudication or court?

Yes. Our analysis is prepared to evidentiary standards so that it can be relied on in adjudication under the Construction Contracts Act 2002, arbitration or High Court proceedings, subject to the requirements of the particular forum and the evidence available.

Who carries out the delay analysis?

The analysis is led personally by Fouad El Chikhani, founding and managing director and a member of the New Zealand Society of Construction Law since 2006, with Technical Director Hani Al Olabi. The senior expert who forms the conclusions is the expert who signs them.

Does forensic delay analysis involve legal advice?

No. We provide impartial technical analysis of the programme and delivery record. We do not provide legal advice and we do not act as legal advisers. Where a matter has legal dimensions, we work alongside your legal team so that our findings can be used in their processes.

What records do you need?

Ideally the baseline or as-planned programme, the as-built record, progress updates, site instructions, correspondence and any contractual notice record. Where records are incomplete, we will tell you what can and cannot be established from the evidence available.

Can you review analysis already prepared by another party?

Yes. We can review existing delay analysis, test its assumptions and methodology, and advise on where it is supported by the record and where it is not.

Can you tell us quickly whether a claim is worth pursuing?

Yes. Through a fast claim validation review we test whether the programme and the available evidence indicate a credible delay claim before the cost of full analysis is committed, and identify the programme or evidence gaps that would need to be addressed.

Confidential enquiry

Tell us about your matter

Share as much or as little as you are comfortable with at this stage. We will assess whether we can help and explain next steps.