Most of construction projects suffer from delays. These delays could be due to several reasons such as, poor design, poor planning and variation orders. The most controversial type of delays in the construction industry is the concurrent delay. Ambiguity usually surrounds the concurrent delays when they exist in the project because they do not have a unified or agreed upon definition. In addition, there are different remedy theories in terms of time and cost when they arise. Therefore, the aim of this research is to highlight how the Egyptian Law perceive concurrency; in addition to performing a comprehensive literature review for the accepted definitions for concurrent delays. The scope of this literature includes how different countries law define concurrency and its remedy including Egyptian Law, English Law and the US Law. In addition, the literature also includes how different internationally recognized protocols recommends the definition for concurrency and its reimbursement including the Association for the advancement of cost engineering (AACE) 2011, the Society of Construction Law (SCL) 2017, and the American Society of civil engineers (ASCE) 2016. Furthermore, the literature also shows how different standards forms of contracts identify concurrency and its consequences including FIDIC 2017 & NEC3. After that, this research proposes an analytical model that will help the user to identify concurrency and will output the delay responsibility for each party and the extension of time that should be granted to the contractor. The model includes the three internationally accepted standards (i.e.: AACE, SCL Protocol & ASCE) for the user to select from. The model is developed using MS visual basic programming language because of its wide array of functions and availability. Then, it was initially tested using different “what if scenarios” to determine its validity and limitations. After that, it was validated using actual project data where the final result was compared to both the contractor claim and the consultant’s counter claim. After verification & validation, the model proved its validity. Therefore, this model could be considered a useful tool for claim management, as it provides acceptable evidence in case of concurrency allowing the user to choose the best suitable concurrency analysis approach to the project
