For a structural expert examining a defects claim, or a delay expert reconstructing what actually happened on site against what the programme said should have happened, the inspection and evidence-gathering phase is where the report either earns its credibility or begins losing it. This piece looks at what a defensible inspection and evidence process looks like on the scale of GCC mega-projects — airport expansions, rail corridors, solar programmes, and the like — where the sheer volume of records and the scale of the physical works raise the stakes considerably.
Inspect to the extent the opinion requires — and no less
The governing principle is straightforward to state and harder to apply in practice: any inspection must be carried out to the extent reasonably necessary to produce a professionally competent opinion, having regard to its purpose and the circumstances of the case. On a contained defects dispute involving a single building element, that might mean a focused, well-documented site visit. On a claim touching multiple work fronts across a large infrastructure corridor, it may mean a structured sampling strategy across representative sections, because a full physical inspection of every metre of a rail line or every panel of a solar array is neither practical nor proportionate.
What matters is that the scope of inspection is a considered, defensible decision — not a default dictated by time pressure or budget — and that any shortfall is disclosed. Where an inspection is not undertaken, or falls short of what would ideally be required, the expert must say so plainly in the report, along with an explanation of the implications for the evidence. A report that is silent on this point, and simply proceeds as though a limited inspection were comprehensive, is vulnerable the moment opposing counsel asks how much of the works the expert actually saw.
Documenting the inspection itself
On large, technically complex projects, the inspection record needs to do more than confirm that a visit took place. A defensible record typically includes:
- Photographic and, where relevant, video documentation, referenced against specific locations, drawings, or chainage points
- A contemporaneous note of what was observed, taken at the time rather than reconstructed afterward from memory
- Identification of who else was present, in what capacity, and any role they played in facilitating access or providing information
- Where testing was carried out, the methodology used, who conducted it, and under whose supervision — a point RICS guidance treats as a standing requirement, not an optional extra
- Clear separation between what the expert directly observed and what was reported to the expert by others on site
That last distinction matters more than it might first appear. An expert's own observations carry different evidential weight from information relayed by a site manager or a contractor's representative, and a report that blurs the two invites exactly the kind of challenge that undermines an otherwise sound opinion.
Working with the documentary record
On most delay and quantum disputes, the documentary evidence dwarfs the physical inspection in volume and, often, in evidential weight. Programmes, progress reports, site diaries, correspondence, variation instructions, and payment records form the backbone of the analysis. The discipline here is consistency: an expert should apply the same standard of scrutiny to documents that support the instructing party's position as to documents that undermine it, and should be prepared to say so where the record is incomplete, contradictory, or simply silent on a point the opinion depends upon.
Where third parties — surveyors, testing laboratories, other consultants — have carried out examinations or measurements the expert relies on, the report should identify their relevant experience and qualifications, the nature and methodology of their work, and whether it was carried out under the expert's supervision. An opinion built on unexplained third-party data is an opinion a tribunal has no basis to weigh properly.
A note on named GCC infrastructure programmes
Projects of the scale of the Al Maktoum International Airport expansion, the Dubai Metro Blue Line, Etihad Rail, or Al Dhafra Solar PV present a particular evidentiary challenge: the documentary record is vast, multiple contractors and subcontractors typically hold overlapping but non-identical sets of programme and progress data, and physical access for inspection is often constrained by ongoing operations or safety requirements. Experts working on disputes connected to projects of this scale should build inspection and evidence-gathering plans early, in close coordination with instructing counsel, rather than treating access and disclosure as something to be resolved once drafting is already underway.
Why this stage deserves more time than it usually gets
Under commercial pressure to move a dispute forward, inspection and evidence gathering is sometimes treated as a formality to be completed quickly so that drafting can begin. That is a mistake. The quality of everything that follows — the report's methodology, its resilience to cross-examination, its credibility in a joint expert meeting — depends on the rigour applied at this stage. Time invested here is rarely wasted; time skipped here tends to resurface, at a worse moment, later in the proceedings.
Part 7 turns to what follows the evidence-gathering phase: the anatomy of a defensible expert report, and how the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence shape expectations around structure and content.