Construction delay and scheduling expert
Expert class library · Construction · Either side
Analyzes project schedules to determine what caused delay, who is responsible, and how much time extension is due. Most opinions turn on the critical path.
What this expert is retained to answer
- What activities were on the critical path, and which events actually delayed project completion?
- Who is responsible for each period of delay, and were any delays concurrent?
- How many days of time extension, if any, is the contractor entitled to?
- Is the chosen schedule analysis method appropriate given the schedules that exist for the project?
Methods
- Critical path method analysis
- Windows analysis
- Time impact analysis
- As-planned versus as-built comparison
How the testimony is attacked
- Unexplained critical path methodology. Saying a delay was critical is not enough; the expert must show the steps used to identify critical path delays. Balfour Beatty found the opinions unreliable when the expert could not explain them.
- Ignoring the client's own delays. Discounting evidence that the retaining party caused or contributed to delay undermines causation. Balfour Beatty faulted the expert for dismissing the contractor's slow start.
- Using as-planned versus as-built instead of CPM. Opponents argue the simpler comparison method is unreliable. BES Design/Build held the government had not shown the method inadmissible on that project.
- After-the-fact schedule reconstruction. Where no contemporaneous schedule exists, opponents argue a reconstructed schedule is hypothetical. The government made this argument in BES Design/Build.
- Overlooked events. Failing to consider certain events usually goes to credibility rather than admissibility. Hall Arts admitted a CPM expert despite claims he ignored some facts.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, "critical path" AND delay AND construction AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 10 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 2, 2026; broader searches return more. 7 rulings that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admitted | Couvillion Group, LLC v. Plaquemines Parish GovernmentNo. 2025-CA-0356 (La. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026) | La. Ct. App. 2026 | The Louisiana appellate court upheld admission of the contractor's forensic scheduling testimony, holding that alleged departures from the AACE recommended practice and disputes over the critical path did not invalidate the method in a field the recommended practice itself calls partly subjective. |
| Admitted | BES Design/Build, LLC v. United StatesNo. 21-1273 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 27, 2025) | Fed. Cl. 2025 | The court declined to exclude a delay expert who used an as-planned versus as-built analysis, holding the government had not shown that the method was inadmissible on this project or that the expert used no critical path analysis. |
| Admitted | Hall Arts Ctr. Office, LLC v. Hanover Ins. Co.327 F. Supp. 3d 979 | N.D. Tex. 2018 | The court admitted a scheduling expert who used the widely accepted critical path method despite arguments that he ignored some facts, and also admitted an opposing expert who explained why that method was not feasible without monthly schedules. |
| Excluded | Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.173 F. Supp. 3d 363 | N.D. Tex. 2016 | After a bench trial, the court found the contractor's delay expert's critical path opinions not sufficiently reliable because he never explained how he identified critical path delays and discounted evidence of the contractor's own slow start. |
| Exclusion reversed | Gilchrist Construction Co. v. State, Department of Transportation & Development166 So. 3d 1045 | La. Ct. App. 2015 | The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion under the state analogue to Rule 702 by refusing to qualify the agency's witness as a critical path method scheduling expert despite decades of scheduling experience, though it found the error harmless on the record. |
| Excluded | Allstate Interiors & Exteriors, Inc. v. Stonestreet Construction, LLC907 F. Supp. 2d 216 | D.R.I. 2012 | After a bench trial, the court held that the owner's delay witness did not meet Rule 702 because he performed no critical path analysis and simply subtracted planned from actual durations, work he conceded anyone familiar with the records could do. |
| Admitted | Weitz Co. v. MH Washington, LLC631 F.3d 510 | 8th Cir. 2011 | The Eighth Circuit affirmed admission of the contractor's windows analysis of project delay, holding that disputes over which activities belonged on a critical path the expert derived from the baseline schedule went to weight rather than reliability. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Under amended Rule 702
Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Last reviewed October 2, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.