Cost & Delay Claims: Time Impact Analysis and the Measured-Mile Method

Short answer: a delay claim is only as good as the method behind it. The industry-standard approach is to start from the contract (baseline) schedule, identify the delay events, and use time impact analysis to show which of those events moved the critical path. For productivity loss, the measured-mile method isolates the loss by comparing what the crew actually did on unaffected work against what the schedule planned.

Delay and disruption claims are among the most technical issues in a construction dispute — and the analysis method is where credibility is won or lost. Here is the framework, in plain terms.

The building blocks

• Baseline schedule. The contract schedule — the plan the project was measured against. Without a usable baseline, a delay claim has no reference point.
• Critical path. The longest sequence of activities that sets the finish date. Only critical-path delay extends completion; everything else has float.
• Float. The slack an activity has before it affects the finish. Understanding whose float was consumed is central to delay analysis.
• Excusable vs. non-excusable delay. Excusable delay is caused by events the contractor is not responsible for (often owner-caused or excusable conditions); non-excusable delay is the contractor’s own. Concurrent delay is when both occur at once — a frequent point of contention on entitlement.

Time Impact Analysis (TIA)

TIA is the widely used method for evaluating how a specific delay event affects the schedule. In essence, it:

1. Starts from the updated schedule at the time the delay event occurred.
2. Inserts the delay event at the correct point and logic.
3. Re-calculates the schedule to show the effect on the critical path and the finish date.
4. Isolates the impact attributable to that event, separate from other delays.

Done properly, TIA ties a particular event — a late drawing, a RFI, an out-of-sequence work directive — to a specific, quantified effect on completion. It is favored in practice and by the industry’s scheduling guidance (such as the AACE’s recommended practices) precisely because it is transparent and auditable.

The Measured-Mile method (productivity loss)

Delay is not the only disruption. A crew can be on time but slowed down by out-of-sequence work, congestion, or site conditions — a loss of productivity. The measured-mile method quantifies that:

1. Identify a portion of the work that was performed without the disruptive conditions — the “mile.”
2. Measure the crew’s actual productivity on that section.
3. Compare it to the planned productivity from the baseline or the contract.
4. Apply that productivity ratio to the affected work to estimate the productivity loss.

The method’s strength is that it uses the contractor’s own unaffected performance as the benchmark, rather than an industry average that the other side can attack.

What a defensible cost-and-delay analysis includes

• The contract and baseline schedule, and how it is to be read.
• The actuals — as-built schedule, updated schedules, field records.
• A clear list of the delay events and who caused each.
• The method (TIA for delay, measured-mile for productivity) and why it fits the project.
• A transparent quantification — the extension of time and, where applicable, the cost impact.
• The assumptions and limitations the analysis depends on.

The goal is the same in cost and delay as in any expert opinion: a finding a trier of fact can follow, grounded in the contract and the record.

For the full scope of cost and delay analysis — schedule and critical-path analysis, cost estimates, and quantification — see our cost and delay claims page.