291 Days Claimed, 64 Days Approved

01 — The Position

A contractor extension-of-time claim of 291 days to the infrastructure-handover milestone — the date that governed completion of the works — built on 18 delay events said to have run across 11 milestones. Most were framed identically: continuous revision of issued-for-construction drawings across the utility networks — sewer, storm water, potable water, irrigation, telecom, power, roads, lighting — with material-supply and force-majeure events alongside. Because the exposure was substantial, the Employer did not rest on a single opinion: it commissioned three independent assessments of the same claim, of which this analysis was one. What follows is how the number was built — not how it was negotiated.

02 — The Evidence

A claim of this size is only as good as the record beneath it, so the first work was not analysis but reconstruction. A structured review against the claim’s own references showed that a large part of the documentary evidence it relied on had never actually been submitted. Rather than reject the events for that alone, the missing material was pursued: a working session with the contractor, a formal claim-verification checklist tied to the contract’s early-warning and claim-notification provisions, and evidence called for back on an event-by-event basis. Where it still did not come, the contemporaneous record was rebuilt from the project’s own files — programme updates at each data date, the instruction and correspondence trail, approvals and transmittals — so every event could be tested against what the record showed at the time, not the narrative written around it afterwards. Confidential project records limit the level of detail that can be published.

03 — The Programme Analysis

The analysis was retrospective and windowed: the programme divided at successive data dates, and each event placed in the window in which it arose, so its effect could be read against the path actually driving the affected milestone at that time. A method only holds up if its rules are fixed before the results are known, so the conventions were set out in advance. Each event’s start was taken from when the contractor had originally planned to begin the affected engineering, procurement or construction; its finish from the point its successor activity could genuinely proceed. A defined allowance was applied to drawing submission and re-submission turnaround, measured against the contract’s own stated period, so that time lost to the contractor’s own late or repeated submissions could be separated cleanly from time properly at the Employer’s risk. Every one of the 18 events was then run through the same sequence, rather than judged on how it read.

04 — Event Mapping

Each event was decomposed along the chain that actually delivered its work package — issued-for-construction drawing, shop-drawing approval, material approval, procurement, construction — and mapped to the specific activities and milestone it was said to affect. Decomposed this way, the claim’s structure came apart. Many events landed on sub-elements that were never on the milestone-driving path: a revision to a branch line while the main line was already approved and progressing; a drawing change to work the contractor could not yet have reached, because its own preceding activity — deep-utility backfilling, a trade still incomplete — was late. The mapping, not the assertion, decided which of the 18 events were even capable of moving completion.

05 — Cause & Effect

For every event that survived mapping, one question governed: did a demonstrable cause produce a demonstrable effect on completion? Event after event the record answered no, and gave the reason. Some work had started early enough to bank float that absorbed the later change. Some drawing delays ran concurrently with the contractor’s own delay, so the network could not have progressed on time whatever the drawing status. Some approval delays traced not to the reviewer but to the contractor’s own late or non-compliant submissions; some material delays to its own late procurement. A genuine stoppage in one area was mitigated by a design relocation and the time recovered. And where impact was asserted but never substantiated — a force-majeure period, a material shortage — it earned nothing. Cause was never inferred from coincidence of timing; it had to be shown, link by link, on the contemporaneous record.

06 — Critical Path

Only delay that was critical in its own window counted. Delay sitting on floated activities — however real, however clearly at the Employer’s risk — cannot extend a completion date, so it added nothing to the entitlement. Tested this way, the 291-day claim resolved, on the milestone that governed completion, to just two genuinely critical events: an unresolved potable-water design deficiency and a telecom-network drawing revision. Those two — not the long slate the claim was built on — were the only delay that could be shown to have moved the date.

07 — Entitlement / Assessment

What survived every test was the Employer-risk critical delay, and it sat far below the claim. On the governing milestone it resolved to two events and a clean arithmetic: a potable-water design deficiency at 47 days and a telecom-network drawing revision at 17 days — together, the 64. Reaching that figure meant correcting in both directions on the evidence. Days another assessment had allowed — for a pump-station event the contractor never actually substantiated — were declined; while genuine critical effect from the design deficiency, which earlier review had passed over, was captured. The number was built up from the record, not fitted to a target.

08 — The Decision

64 days — the delay the evidence and the programme could support, and no more. The 227 days that fell away were not conceded across a table; each was accounted for, event by event, as contractor-risk, concurrent, off the driving path, or unsupported by evidence. The strength of the figure was never that it was argued well — it was that anyone following the same process, through the same record, would rebuild it. Which is what happened.

09 — The Outcome

64 days, approved. Two other assessments had been run on the same claim, independently and by different hands: the Engineer arrived at 66 days, an independent forensic specialist at 60. Three separate routes through the same record, landing within a six-day band — the clearest possible sign that the determination reflected the project’s actual delay rather than any one party’s position. A figure three independent analyses converge on is not an opinion; it is a finding.

10 — Director’s Lesson

Follow the thread

Case study → method → evidence → decision: Claims & Delay · EOT Review Framework · Field note: interrogating an EOT · Director’s Playbook. See the decision framework behind it in My Approach.