Do you cover delay analysis as well?

No: I do quantum, the money side of a claim, only, and that limit is deliberate; where a claim needs delay analysis, the separate work of proving how long a project was delayed and why, I say so and work alongside whoever provides it. Money and time are different disciplines, blurred exactly where claims fail: a prolongation head, the claim for the extra cost of being on site longer than planned, is only as strong as the delay analysis underneath it, and a quantum surveyor who improvises the programme side weakens both halves. So on claims with a time element I price the consequences of the delay case your analyst establishes, keep the interfaces clean so the figures and the programme agree, and flag where a money head waits on a time answer before it can be finalised. You get a valuation that rests on proper delay evidence, not a guess dressed up as one.

Say a steelwork subcontractor has a claim that turns on a project running 12 weeks late, and part of what they want is the cost of being on site for those extra 12 weeks. That is a prolongation head, and the honest answer to how long the delay was and whose fault it is comes from a delay analyst reading the programme, not from me. The analyst establishes that eight of the 12 weeks are the employer's responsibility and four the subcontractor's own. I take that eight week finding and price it: the site cabin, the supervisor's time, the small tools and welfare that ran for those eight weeks, each drawn from the records. Had the analyst's figure been six weeks, my valuation would move with it. That is the clean interface working: I value the money that follows from the time case someone qualified has proved, and flag the head as unfinished until that answer lands.