Delay & EOT
What Makes an EOT Claim Defensible?
The gap between days claimed and days awarded is usually a gap in discipline, not entitlement. I have seen a 291-day claim resolve to 64 — because the analysis behind it was built to survive scrutiny.
Entitlement follows the critical path
Time is due only for delay that actually pushes out completion. A delay that consumes float without moving the finish generally carries no extension. The first question is never “how many days was the event?” but “did it drive completion, on the programme current at the time?”
It starts with a credible baseline
You cannot measure delay against a programme no one accepts. Realistic logic, a genuine critical path, no manufactured float — much of the work of winning a claim is done long before the event.
The right method, applied consistently
Choose a recognised method for the timing and records, then apply it consistently. The fastest way to weaken a claim is to appear to have picked the method that gives the biggest number.
Cause, effect, concurrency, records
Evidence every day claimed from cause to critical-path effect; assertion is not entitlement. Address concurrency honestly rather than hoping the other side misses it. And serve notices on time with contemporaneous records — a claim reconstructed months later will never be as strong as one built as events unfold.