Extension of Time (EOT) and delay analysis: methods and evidence

Extension of Time (EOT) is one of the most frequent and most contested topics in FIDIC. An EOT protects the contractor from delay damages for delays that are not its fault. But obtaining an EOT without discipline and evidence is almost impossible.

When the entitlement arises

Sub-Clause 8.5 gives a right to an extension if completion is delayed by causes for which the Employer is responsible, or that fall under shared risk. Typical grounds:

• Variations;
• delays by the Employer (site access, data, approvals);
• exceptional events (Clause 18);
• unforeseeable physical conditions (depending on the book);
• delays by authorities, and so on.

A right to an EOT does not automatically mean a right to money — these are separate claims (time and/or cost), though they often go together.

The procedure

An EOT is a claim, so Clause 20 applies: a notice within 28 days of becoming aware of the event, then detailed substantiation. Missing the deadline is critical (see “The 28-day rule”).

The role of the programme

The baseline programme under Sub-Clause 8.3 is the reference point. It is against this that you show how the event affected the critical path and the completion date. A regularly updated programme and recorded actual dates are the basis of proof.

An EOT is proved not by words but by the programme and records. No coherent programme — no convincing EOT.

Delay-analysis methods

In practice several recognised methods are used (see the SCL Protocol and case practice):

• Impacted As-Planned — the event is “inserted” into the baseline; simple but weak (prospective, hypothetical).
• Time Impact Analysis (TIA) — assesses the event’s impact at the time it occurred; popular for prospective analysis.
• As-Planned vs As-Built — compares planned and actual programmes; visual, but needs good records.
• Collapsed As-Built (but-for) — Employer events are “removed” from the as-built to show what would have happened without them.
• Windows / Time Slice Analysis — analysis by time windows; considered one of the most reliable with good data.

The choice of method depends on data quality, the stage (prospective/retrospective) and the contract terms.

What kills an EOT claim

• No programme, or a “frozen” one.
• No contemporaneous records.
• Mixing concurrent delays without analysis.
• Late or token notices.

Concurrent delay

When an Employer delay and a Contractor delay operate at the same time, these are “concurrent delays”. The approach depends on the governing law and the wording; typically the contractor may get an EOT (protection from delay damages) but not necessarily money for that period. This is a complex area — expert assessment matters most here.

Conclusion

An EOT is not a “war of words” but engineering-and-evidence work: a programme, records, a correct analysis method and timely notices. If a delay is brewing on a project, build the evidence base in advance. Need help with delay analysis or preparing an EOT claim? Request a consultation.