This guide explains what solicitors should expect from construction quantum experts, how standard form contracts frame entitlement, and how TCC and adjudication practice shapes expert evidence.
Loss and Expense Under Standard Form Contracts
Loss and expense (or 'financial compensation' under NEC) compensates the contractor for direct loss and/or expense attributable to employer risk events. Under JCT Standard Building Contract, relevant matters and relevant events trigger entitlement subject to proper notice under the contract.
NEC4 uses a different mechanism, compensation events assessed against defined cost and forecast defined cost, but the forensic task is similar: establish entitlement, establish causation, quantify the financial impact. FIDIC Red Book claims follow a distinct notice and claim procedure but similarly require the contractor to prove entitlement and quantum.
The quantum expert reviews the contract, notices, contemporary records, and final account to determine which items are contractually entitled and at what value. Entitlement is a legal question; the expert quantifies loss for items the solicitor has properly pleaded or that are agreed.
JCT, NEC, and FIDIC: What Solicitors Should Know
Each standard form allocates risk differently. JCT uses extension of time and loss and expense as linked but separate mechanisms. NEC integrates time and cost through compensation events with a collaborative programme-based approach. FIDIC emphasises strict notice requirements and detailed claim submissions under Clause 20.
Solicitors should instruct quantum experts with the specific form used and the amendment schedule. Heavily amended contracts may bear little resemblance to the standard form, the expert must work from the actual contract, not assumptions based on unamended templates.
For international projects, currency, tax, and head office overhead formulae (Hudson, Emden, Eichleay) may arise. Agree the applicable formula early and ensure the delay expert and quantum expert use consistent periods for prolongation analysis.
Prolongation vs Disruption
Prolongation costs arise when the completion date is delayed, extended site overheads, plant hire, preliminaries, and staff costs continuing beyond the planned completion date. Disruption costs arise when works are carried out less efficiently than planned, reduced labour productivity, out-of-sequence working, and crowding.
These are distinct heads of loss requiring different forensic approaches. Prolongation links to the delay analysis and the period of critical delay. Disruption requires productivity analysis comparing planned output with actual output, often using measured mile or earned value techniques.
Global claims that aggregate all increased costs without demonstrating causation for each head are vulnerable to challenge following John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner RJ Brown Pty Ltd [1996] 8 CLJ 70 and Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay [2012] BLR 503. Solicitors should plead individual heads with specific causal links. The quantum expert should avoid global methodologies unless the claim is properly particularised and supported.
Scott Schedules and TCC Practice
The Scott Schedule is the standard format for presenting construction claims in Technology and Construction Court proceedings. Each row identifies a claim item, the amount claimed, the responding party's position, and the expert's opinion. Courts frequently order Scott Schedules to narrow issues.
Quantum experts should prepare or contribute to Scott Schedules early. A well-prepared schedule forces discipline in particularisation and reveals weaknesses before trial. Where delay and quantum experts are separately instructed, ensure their schedules are consistent on periods and causation links.
TCC judges expect experts to have complied with CPR Part 35 and the TCC Guide. Reports should be concise, technically competent, and focused on disputed issues, not exhaustive re-statement of the entire project history. The Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes requires genuine attempts to resolve issues before proceedings.
Adjudication and Quantum Expert Evidence
Adjudication is a 28-day (extendable) process requiring focused expert input. The quantum expert in adjudication must produce clear, evidenced calculations that an adjudicator can assess quickly. Full CPR-style reports are rarely appropriate, instead, produce a decision-ready quantum narrative with supporting schedules.
Experts may be instructed after the referring party's notice of adjudication. Time constraints mean document packs must be organised and complete at instruction. Solicitors should prioritise: contract and amendments; relevant notices; agreed valuations; disputed variations; programme records; and cost records for the disputed period.
Party-appointed experts in adjudication should still maintain independence under CPR Part 35 principles where applicable. For enforcement challenges, the expert's objectivity and reasoning may be scrutinised. Instruct experts who understand adjudication's pace and can produce defensible analysis within tight timetables.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifications should a construction quantum expert hold?
Construction quantum experts are typically MRICS or FRICS quantity surveyors, or forensic accountants with substantial construction experience. FCIArb membership indicates arbitration expertise. Verify prior TCC and adjudication experience before instruction.
Do I need separate delay and quantum experts?
For complex delay claims, yes. The delay analyst establishes entitlement to time; the quantum expert values the financial consequences. They must coordinate on periods, causes, and assumptions. In smaller claims, a combined expert may suffice.