When the dispute is about days, bring the numbers.
Stelic prevents disputes before they harden and, when one arrives, quantifies the delay with time impact and windows analysis. The result is a defensible, settlement-first position that protects your outcome, and the relationship.
Dispute resolution is the work of turning a conflict over time and money into a quantified, defensible position, ideally before it ever reaches a lawyer.
Most construction disputes come down to two questions: how much delay actually happened, and who's responsible for it. Answered with opinions and emails, those questions drag on for months and poison the project. Answered with the schedule, the as-planned versus the as-built, isolated event by event, they become numbers both sides can see.
That's the core of the discipline: not arguing louder, but analyzing better. Time impact analysis, windows analysis, productivity studies, and delay matrices replace "you delayed us" with "this event cost 18 days on the critical path, and here's the fragnet that proves it."
Stelic works the full arc, preventing disputes through clear contracts and early warning, and quantifying them rigorously when they arise. We work the owner's side, but the position's strength comes from analysis that holds up no matter who's reading it.
A claim built on numbers settles. One built on blame litigates.
Both parties usually believe they're owed something. The difference between a fast settlement and a two-year fight is whether the position is quantified from the schedule or argued from memory.
Delay proven from the schedule.
As-planned versus as-built, each event isolated with a fragnet, compensable and concurrent delay separated, evidence both sides can read.
- Built from
- The schedule and the records.
- Resolves by
- Negotiation, on shared facts.
- Tends to be
- Faster, cheaper, relationship-safe.
He-said, she-said.
Competing accounts assembled from emails and recollection, with no objective measure of how much delay each event really caused.
- Built from
- Opinions and correspondence.
- Resolves by
- Attrition, lawyers, or a tribunal.
- Tends to be
- Slow, costly, relationship-ending.
The best dispute is the one that never forms. Most of what makes a claim winnable, clean schedules, clear contracts, contemporaneous records, is built long before the conflict. That's why prevention and analysis are the same discipline: the rigor that quantifies a delay is the rigor that stops it becoming a dispute in the first place.
From prevention to a position you can settle on.
We'd rather stop a dispute than win one. When one does form, we move from cause to quantification to strategy, building toward the earliest fair resolution, not the longest fight.
Allocate risk clearly
We review contracts and allocate risk up front, so the rules are clear before anything goes wrong.
- Contract review & drafting
- Risk identification & allocation
- Resolution clause drafting
Catch it early
Early-warning systems and proactive communication surface issues while they're still small.
- Early-warning systems
- Proactive communication
- Contemporaneous records
Find the root cause
We establish what actually happened, its impact, and the records that evidence it.
- Impact assessment
- Root cause analysis
- Document review
Measure the delay
We isolate each event on the schedule and separate compensable, concurrent, and non-excusable delay.
- Time impact analysis
- Windows & delay matrix
- Productivity analysis
Build the strategy
We weigh the options, budget, and risk, and plan the route to the best achievable outcome.
- Strategy & option analysis
- Budget & risk assessment
- Communication planning
Resolve & report
We support negotiation or mediation with a clear, evidenced position and a defensible report.
- Recommendations & reporting
- Negotiation support
- Expert delay report
Three tracks, one defensible position.
Engage us early to prevent disputes, or bring us in to assess, quantify, and resolve one that's already formed.
Dispute Prevention
The cheapest dispute is the one that never forms, clear contracts, allocated risk, and early warning.
- Contract review & drafting
- Risk identification & allocation
- Partnering & team building
- Resolution clause drafting
- Early-warning systems
- Proactive communication
Dispute Assessment
Establishing what really happened, its impact, and the cause, before anyone argues about blame.
- Impact assessment
- Prioritization & categorization
- Root cause analysis
- Time impact analysis development
- Document review
- Windows & delay matrix analysis
Resolution Strategy
Turning the analysis into a plan, weighing options, budget, and risk on the way to a fair outcome.
- Strategy & option analysis
- Budget estimation
- Risk assessment
- Communication planning
- Mitigation & contingency planning
- Recommendations & reporting
A position that holds up.
Every engagement produces the analyses and reports that turn a dispute into defensible numbers, the things that settle a claim instead of prolonging it.
Time impact analysis
Fragnets that isolate each delay event's effect on the critical path, the basis for an extension of time.
Windows & delay matrix
Period-by-period analysis attributing delay to its cause, mapped across the life of the project.
Productivity analysis
Measured loss of productivity, isolating disruption from the normal cost of doing the work.
Root cause analysis
The documented chain from event to impact, so the dispute is argued from cause, not from blame.
Expert delay report
The written, evidenced opinion on delay and entitlement, structured to stand up under scrutiny.
Contract risk review
Where the contract leaves you exposed, and the redrafting that closes the gap before it's tested.
Resolution strategy
The options, budget, and recommended route to the earliest fair outcome, weighed against the risk.
Early-warning system
The triggers and records that flag a brewing dispute in time to head it off, set up before you need it.
The delay, in numbers both sides can read.
A representative slice of a delay analysis, as-planned against as-built, with each delay event attributed to its cause. Illustrative figures.
The position: of 138 days the contractor claimed, windows analysis substantiates 96. Of those, 58 are compensable, 22 are concurrent with non-excusable delay (no entitlement), and 16 are the contractor's own. The quantified exposure of $4.2M, down from an $8.9M opening number, gives both sides a defensible basis to settle.
Built for projects where a delay turns into a number.
The discipline is the same; the stakes differ. We tailor the analysis and the strategy to the contract, the forum, and what each sector's disputes turn on.
What changes when the dispute is quantified.
We don't lead with numbers we can't tie to your project. We lead with the operational difference an objective, evidenced position makes.
Faster resolution
A quantified position settles in conversations, not courtrooms, so the dispute stops draining the project.
A cheaper path than litigation
Resolving on shared numbers costs a fraction of a drawn-out legal fight, and gets there far sooner.
Relationships survive
Arguing from facts instead of blame keeps the parties working together, on this project and the next.
Fewer disputes, full stop
The prevention work, clear contracts, allocated risk, early warning, means most conflicts never form.
What it looks like in practice.
An anonymized, composite example of how Stelic turns a sprawling claim into a number both sides can settle on.
A contractor on a public interchange filed an $8.9M claim for 138 days of delay, blaming the owner. The agency faced either paying it or a litigation fight, with no objective read on how much delay was actually owner-caused.
Independently quantify the delay: determine how many of the 138 days the schedule supported, and how much was compensable, concurrent, or the contractor's own.
We ran a windows analysis across six periods, built fragnets for each major event, separated concurrent delay, and tied a productivity study to the disruption, then issued an expert delay report.
The analysis substantiated 96 days, of which 58 were compensable, narrowing exposure to $4.2M. With a defensible number on the table, the agency settled in mediation and avoided years of litigation.
A claim is only as strong as the analysis behind it.
Anyone can assert a delay. The value is whether the schedule supports it, the concurrency is separated honestly, and the method holds up, because that's what makes the other side settle.
We quantify the delay from the schedule, so the position is one a mediator or tribunal would reach too.
Prevention first
The cheapest claim is the one that never forms. We build the contracts, risk allocation, and early warning that stop most disputes at the source.
Quantified, not narrative
Time impact, windows, and productivity analysis replace opinion with numbers, separating compensable, concurrent, and non-excusable delay honestly.
Method that withstands scrutiny
We use recognized delay-analysis methods, documented from the schedule and records, so the position holds up under the other side's expert.
Settlement-first, relationship-aware
The aim is the earliest fair resolution that keeps the parties working together, not the longest, most expensive win.
Dispute resolution, answered.
It spans the whole arc of a dispute: preventing it through clear contracts and risk allocation, assessing the cause and impact when an issue arises, quantifying delay and cost objectively, and building a resolution strategy. Stelic's goal is a fair, defensible outcome reached as early and cheaply as possible, ideally a negotiated settlement rather than a drawn-out legal fight.
Delay analysis uses the project schedule to determine how much delay an event actually caused and who's responsible. Techniques like time impact analysis, windows analysis, and delay matrices compare the as-planned and as-built schedules, isolate each delay event, and separate compensable, concurrent, and non-excusable delay. The result is a quantified, evidence-based position rather than competing opinions.
No. The most valuable work is preventive: reviewing contracts, allocating risk clearly, and standing up early-warning systems so issues are caught and resolved before they harden into claims. When a dispute does arise, getting us in early, while the schedule and records are still fresh, dramatically strengthens the position and lowers the cost of resolving it.
Time impact analysis inserts a delay event into the project schedule as a fragnet to measure its specific effect on the critical path and the completion date. It isolates how much delay a particular event caused, which makes it the standard basis for an extension of time request or a defensible delay claim.
Our analysis is impartial and methods-based; the numbers come from the schedule and the records, not from whose side we're on. We support owners in protecting their position, but the strength of that position comes precisely from the fact that the delay analysis is objective and would hold up under scrutiny by the other party, a mediator, or a tribunal.
It doesn't have to. We work settlement-first: a clear, quantified position often resolves a dispute faster and more amicably than vague accusations, because both sides can see the same defensible numbers. Preserving the working relationship is an explicit goal, and a well-handled claim is usually less damaging than a festering, unaddressed grievance.
Bring us the claim, or the contract you don't want to become one.
A delay to quantify, a dispute to resolve, or a project to protect before anything goes wrong, the support scales to fit, and the analysis stays objective.