Concurrency arguments appear in nearly every substantial delay dispute we review, and they are frequently pleaded without the analysis needed to support them. Overlap in time is not concurrency in effect, and only one of those propositions is relevant to entitlement.
The analytical discipline that holds up is to establish each delaying event's independent critical path effect before considering interaction, keeping the audit trail visible at each step. Netting events off early may produce a tidier number, but it removes exactly the reasoning a decision-maker needs to accept it.
Contract drafting is also catching up. We are seeing more bespoke clauses that allocate concurrent delay expressly, which makes the contractual position clearer and the factual analysis no less demanding.
Commentary prepared by Elite Analytics Inc. for general information. It is not legal advice.