Key takeaways
- Measured-mile comparison remains the most persuasive approach where an unimpacted period exists.
- Cause must be linked to specific disrupting events, not to a general condition of chaos.
- Productivity monitoring during execution is what makes the claim provable later.
Why disruption claims fail
Loss of productivity claims are frequently presented as a total-cost variance with a narrative attached. Tribunals reject them because the analysis never isolates the disrupting events from the claimant's own inefficiency, pricing risk, or learning curve.
A defensible claim identifies the events, establishes the productivity actually achieved, compares it to a legitimate baseline, and attributes the difference with reasoning that can be tested.
Establishing the baseline
Where the project contains a comparable period free of the alleged disruption, the measured mile is the strongest baseline available. Where it does not, we look to comparable work packages, the tender basis tested for reasonableness, or industry studies as a last resort — and we are explicit about the weakness of each step down that ladder.
- Measured mile within the same project and trade
- Comparable package or comparable site conditions
- Tender basis, tested for reasonableness against achieved output
- Published studies, used only to corroborate
Monitor while you build
The best time to prove disruption is while it is happening. We trace and monitor labour productivity through the project, investigate the causes of any loss as it appears, and hold resource and output records at the level of granularity the analysis will later need.
That record also makes mitigation possible — which is usually worth more to the client than the claim.
Written by Elite Analytics Claims Practice. For advice on a specific project or claim, get in touch.
Contact the team