For contractors in an active dispute
Prove the days you lost to weather.
When an owner or GC denies your rain days, the argument is rarely about whether it rained. It is about whether the weather was abnormal — and whether you can show it, day by day, against the historical record for that exact location.
That is the document this produces. $249 flat, same business day.
Every row carries its reason. Every figure names its source.
A claims consultant charges $2,000+ for this analysis. Most contractors instead spend an unpaid weekend in NOAA spreadsheets, or drop the claim.
Is this the one you need?
Anticipated Weather Exhibit
Free. Looking forward.
How many workdays a typical month costs you at a given site. For bids, schedules, and §8.3 baseline submissions — before anything goes wrong.
Generate one free →Weather Delay Claim Report
$249. Looking back.
What actually happened on the specific dates in dispute, measured against the baseline for those same dates. For when the days are already lost and someone is refusing them.
Start one →How the report is calculated
Every figure traces back to a public record. Nothing is estimated from a regional average, and the report names its own sources so the other side can check them.
The weather that actually occurred
Daily observations come from the NOAA Global Historical Climatology Network — US Government public-domain data, the same source a forensic expert would use. The report names the station, its distance from your jobsite, and the completeness of its record, so nobody has to take the numbers on trust.
Your site's actual soil, not an assumption
Rain stops work; wet ground keeps it stopped, and how long depends on what the site is made of. Soil comes from the USDA NRCS soil survey at your coordinates — the report prints the map unit name and its hydrologic group. Most analyses assume clay. On a well-drained site that overstates your claim, which is exactly the kind of error that gets a claim thrown out.
Workable or not, day by day
Each weekday in the disputed period is classified as workable or unworkable, with the reason given: precipitation, ground still drying from an earlier event, or frozen ground. The report also publishes the split between rain days and drying days — the most falsifiable number in it, and the one a superintendent can check against their own memory in seconds.
The same calendar window, ten years running
The identical calculation is run over the same calendar dates in each of the prior 10 years, at the same location. That is your baseline — what those dates normally cost. Every year's figure is printed, so the comparison can be audited rather than believed.
The abnormality test
Here is where most weather claims fall apart. Beating the 10-year average proves nothing — an average is exceeded roughly half the time by construction, and a competent opposing expert will say so. This report sets the threshold at the baseline mean plus one standard deviation, states how many of the ten comparable periods were more adverse, and gives the percentile rank. Assessed against AIA A201 §15.1.6.2.
What the test looks like
Real output from the sample report below — an Alexandria, VA site over a 23-day disputed period. Each grey bar is the same calendar window in one prior year.
The disputed period lost 13 workdays — well above the 10-year mean of 9.3,
and worse than 8 of the 10 comparable periods. It still does not clear the
threshold of 13.2, by two-tenths of a day. So the report returns
elevated, but within the historical range — and says exactly that.
This is the distinction most weather claims lose on,
and the reason a report that says yes is worth something.
It will tell you when you don't have a claim
If the disputed period sits inside the normal range, the report says so plainly and shows the
distribution that proves it. That is not a failure of the product — it is the reason the
favourable ones are worth anything. A tool that always finds a claim is a tool the other side
can discredit in one question.
Days with no station reading are excluded from the count rather than assumed workable, and
coverage is disclosed on the face of the report. If coverage at your site is too thin
to produce a defensible document, you get a full refund.
Read a real sample report (PDF) → — anonymized, and it returns a negative finding.
What arrives in your inbox
- A signed PDF, formatted for AIA A201 §15.1.6.2 submissions
- The finding, in one sentence, with the reasoning behind it
- A day-by-day table of the disputed period: precipitation, temperature, workable status, and the reason for each
- The 10-year baseline broken out by year, with the periods more adverse than yours marked
- Percentile rank, exceedance count, and the abnormality threshold
- The methodology appendix — the full decision procedure, written to be handed to opposing counsel
- Station name, ID, distance and record completeness; soil map unit and hydrologic group
Start your claim report
Tell us the jobsite and the dates in dispute, then complete payment — we start immediately and the report arrives by email the same business day. $249 flat.
Not in a dispute yet? The free Anticipated Weather Exhibit is the one you want.
Common questions
What makes weather "abnormal"?
Weather materially worse than the historical norm for that location and calendar period. AIA A201 doesn't define it numerically, which is why a 10-year baseline is the customary reference — and why beating the average alone isn't a test.
What if the data doesn't support my claim?
You get the report anyway, saying so, with the distribution shown. Knowing early that a claim won't hold is worth more than an expensive argument you lose later.
How fast is it?
Same business day. The analysis is automated; a person reviews it before it goes out. If you're inside a 21-day notice window, say so in the notes.
Can I get several jobsites or periods?
Yes — put the detail in the notes and we'll scope it. If you run claims regularly, ask about volume pricing.
Does this replace a claims consultant?
No. It's the weather and soil analysis a consultant would otherwise build by hand — often the most time-consuming input to their work. Several use it as exactly that.
Ilystics provides weather and soil analysis, not legal advice, and does not determine contractual entitlement, causation, or damages. Section references are to AIA Document A201-2017 for general orientation; your contract, its supplementary conditions, and your jurisdiction control. Ilystics is not affiliated with the AIA. Consult your attorney or claims consultant on entitlement.