Nine Key Points for a Successful Extension of Time (EOT) Claim

Nine Key Points for a Successful Extension of Time (EOT) Claim

Every project begins with a promise. A start date. An end date.

A schedule that ties effort to time. Yet projects rarely unfold in perfect symmetry.

Designs are late, approvals are slow, resources arrive out of sequence, or the weather imposes its own will. Suddenly, progress is no longer aligned with the contract dates. And in that moment, contractors face a choice: absorb the loss, or assert their entitlement.

An Extension of Time (EOT) claim is not a request for sympathy. It is a structured, evidence-based submission. Some contractors win these claims and safeguard their positions. Others lose them and face crushing liquidated damages. The difference lies in discipline.

There are nine critical points that separate a strong EOT from a weak one.

1. Detailed and Accurate Record-Keeping

Records are the oxygen of claims.

Without them, even the strongest narrative collapses.

Daily logs, site diaries, inspection reports, meeting minutes, photographs, RFI registers, and correspondence create the foundation upon which every claim is built.

Tribunals are unforgiving when records are missing. A contractor cannot reconstruct entitlement from memory months later. Records must be contemporaneous, precise, and comprehensive. The Society of Construction Law (SCL) Protocol itself emphasises that the weight of any delay analysis rests on the availability of reliable project records.

2. Timely Notifications

Most contracts treat notice provisions as conditions precedent.

Failure to notify within the stipulated period can extinguish entitlement, even if the delay is genuine. FIDIC, NEC, and bespoke EPC contracts all enshrine strict timelines for giving notice, often 14 or 28 days.

The lesson is simple: a contractor must not wait for events to worsen. Notices must be issued promptly, even if impacts are still being assessed. Anticipatory notices are often preferable to silence. Tribunals will not reward delay in notifying.

3. Baseline Schedule Adherence

The approved baseline programme is the benchmark.

It is not a cosmetic submission. It is the agreed roadmap against which all progress and slippage are measured. If the baseline is weak, unapproved, or ignored, delay analysis becomes speculative.

An approved, realistic baseline allows contractors to prove cause-and-effect. It establishes the critical path. It demonstrates that delay was not a product of poor planning, but of events beyond control.

4. Clear Causal Links

Delay events, no matter how disruptive, must be tied directly to impact on the critical path.

It is not enough to say “this caused delay.” One must prove how it changed the programme.

Causation is the bridge between entitlement and relief. If that bridge is weak, the claim collapses. Expert delay analysis, with documented logic linking cause to effect, transforms narrative into proof.

5. Use of Recognised Delay Analysis Methods for EOT

Tribunals expect recognised methodologies, not improvised calculations.

The SCL Protocol and AACE Recommended Practices provide accepted techniques such as:

• Time Impact Analysis (TIA) for prospective evaluation.

• As Planned Impacted for for prospective evaluation

• As-Planned vs. As-Built for retrospective assessment.

• Windows Analysis for cumulative review.

• And there are around 70+ more methods are used by forensic Delay Analsystss to make their case

Choosing the wrong method, or applying it inconsistently, undermines credibility. Recognised methods provide not only accuracy but also acceptance by arbitral tribunals, dispute adjudication boards, and expert reviewers.

6. Contractual Entitlement

Not every disruption entitles the contractor to time.

The event must fall within the EOT clause of the contract. Delays caused by Employer risk events; late drawings, site access restrictions, variation approvals, may justify relief. Delays of the contractor’s own making will not.

The claim must map facts to the contract’s definitions of excusable or compensable delay. Precision here is decisive. A mischaracterised event will be rejected outright.

7. Mitigation Efforts

A contractor cannot sit idle.

Tribunals expect evidence of mitigation. Was labour resequenced? Were materials expedited? Was night work considered? Even if mitigation could not fully offset delay, the attempt strengthens credibility.

Failure to mitigate exposes the contractor to allegations of contributory delay. Documenting mitigation is as important as documenting delay.

8. Compliance with Contract Procedures

Contracts often dictate the precise form of submission.

Format, timelines, documentation requirements, and substantiation levels are not optional.

A strong claim can be rejected if it does not follow prescribed procedure. Compliance demonstrates professionalism.

Non-compliance is often fatal.

9. Legal and Technical Coordination

An EOT claim is not solely a planning exercise.

It is a hybrid between technical delay analysis and legal entitlement. A technically sound programme unsupported by contractual clauses fails. A legal argument without delay analysis lacks weight.

Coordination between contract specialists, planners, engineers, and legal counsel ensures that the claim stands as both a technical analysis and a legal argument, robust under scrutiny from any angle.

Projects will continue to face delay.

Contractors will continue to face claims.

But the difference between those who suffer liquidated damages and those who secure their rightful extensions lies in method.

Those who master records, notices, causation, and procedure turn claims into entitlement. They move from defence to offence. They protect their time, their margins, and their reputation.

An Extension of Time is never awarded for asking. It is awarded for proving fact by fact, clause by clause, day by day, that the delay was real, unavoidable, and attributable. The nine points outlined here are not a checklist. They are the discipline of successful contractors.