Almost every project runs late. But the difference between a contractor paying liquidated damages and a contractor granted an extension is not the size of the delay — it is the ability to prove, with documents written at the time rather than afterwards, that the cause was not theirs and that the effect landed on the critical path. This is a guide to building that claim from the beginning: from the notice sent on the day to the final submission somebody has to read.
Key takeaways
- An extension of time protects you from liquidated damages; it does not automatically pay your prolongation costs — those are two claims, not one.
- Every delay raises three questions: is it excusable, is it compensable, and does it run concurrently with a delay of your own?
- In many contracts the notice period is a condition of the claim being considered at all, not a formality.
- Contemporaneous records decide claims; a narrative reconstructed six months later convinces nobody.
- A global claim that rolls every cause into one number is usually rejected — linking each event to its own effect is what survives.
An extension of time is not compensation
The most common misunderstanding in delay claims is that time and money are the same award. An extension deals with time: it moves the contractual completion date, which removes your exposure to liquidated damages. Prolongation cost — site establishment, plant, supervision, extended bonds — is a separate financial claim with its own conditions and its own proof.
| Item | Covered by an extension? |
|---|---|
| Relief from liquidated damages over the extended period | Yes — that is its purpose |
| A new contractual completion date | Yes, and later obligations are measured from it |
| Site establishment cost during the extended period | No — a separate financial claim |
| Cost of extending bonds and insurances | No — claimed as part of prolongation |
| Compensation for lost productivity or disruption | No — proved in an entirely different way |
The practical consequence: claim money alone and you may be paid while still exposed to damages; claim time alone and you may escape damages while absorbing six extra months of running a site. A correctly framed submission asks for both, each on its own footing.
Three questions about every delay
Before opening any file, run the event past three questions: is it outside your responsibility (excusable)? was it caused by the client or those they are responsible for (compensable)? and does one of your own delays run alongside it (concurrent)? Those three answers determine what kind of claim it is before a single line is written.
| Category | Examples | Time | Money |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contractor delay | Under-resourcing, rework of defective work, your own late procurement | No | No, and damages accrue |
| Excusable, non-compensable | Exceptionally adverse weather, force majeure, an act of authority | Yes | No |
| Client-caused delay | Late possession of site, late approvals, variations | Yes | Yes, with cost proved |
| Concurrent delay | Late drawing approval running alongside your own labour shortage | Usually yes | Rarely |
Concurrency is the hardest category and the most litigated. The prevailing practical approach is that the contractor earns time — because the excusable event would have delayed completion on its own — but not money, because the same cost would have been incurred anyway due to their own delay. The detail varies with the contract wording and the governing law, but that is the direction of travel.
Notice: the ceiling of the claim, not its paperwork
Many contracts make notice within a fixed period a condition of the claim being considered, not an administrative step. That means a claim that is entirely right on the merits and beautifully documented can fail because it arrived on day twenty-eight instead of day twenty-one. The clock normally starts when you became aware of the event — not when its effect ended, and certainly not when you finished pricing it.
Describe the event, not the feeling
Date, location, factual description: "the northern sector has not been handed over as of today", not "the consultant’s continuing delays". Facts can be verified; impressions cannot.
Cite the contractual clause
State which provision you are relying on. A notice with no contractual basis is easy to reclassify later as ordinary correspondence rather than a claim notice.
Give a preliminary effect, and say it is preliminary
A final number is not required at notice stage. What is required is that the other party knows there is a likely effect on completion and that particulars will follow.
State that you are keeping records
An explicit line confirming that contemporaneous records are being maintained. Some contracts require it, and in every case it signals that the claim will rest on measurement rather than memory.
Send the particulars on time as well
The notice opens the door; the particulars follow within the second period the contract sets. Ignoring that second deadline is a common reason for rejecting claims that were notified perfectly well.
A claim is not won in the month it is written. It is won on the day the event happened and the notice went out.
Records written at the time
A document written on the day of the event carries many times the weight of a report prepared six months later for the purposes of a claim. The reason is simple: the first was not written to serve a position and the second was. Reviewers know the difference and read the dates before the content.
| Record | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Daily site report | Labour and plant present, work executed, standing-time hours |
| Daily weather log | That conditions were genuinely exceptional against the local norm |
| RFI log | Date asked and date answered — the waiting period as a number |
| Dated, geotagged photographs | The state of the site on a specific date, beyond argument |
| Meeting minutes | The other party’s acknowledgement that the event was raised |
| Instruction and variation register | The link between the event and its contractual source |
| Regularly updated programme | Project status before and after the event — the basis of any analysis |
Which is why daily report quality is not an archiving question but a direct financial one. Projects where reports are filled in from site on the day — rather than from the office at the end of the week — enter any delay discussion from a completely different position.
Proving the effect on the critical path
Not every delay extends a project. The delay that earns an extension is one that hits an activity on the critical path, or consumes an activity’s float until it becomes critical. Proving that needs a real programme — not a chart submitted once at signature and never opened again.
Start from an accepted baseline
A programme submitted on time and without substantive objection. An unaccepted baseline makes every later analysis arguable before it begins.
Update it regularly with actual progress
Monthly at minimum, with real progress data from site. A programme untouched for a year proves nothing about anything.
Identify the affected activity precisely
Not "the project was delayed" but "activity 1420, second-floor first fix, suspended from date to date because of event X".
Show the effect reaching completion
Insert the event into the programme as it stood when the event occurred and show how the completion date moved. That is what converts an incident into a number of days.
Deduct your own delay
Where part of the effect is yours, deduct it openly. A voluntary deduction adds more credibility to the rest of the claim than the days it costs you.
There are several recognised analysis methods — as-planned versus as-built, time impact analysis and others. Which one fits is a technical question that depends on the contract and on the quality of your data; but whichever you choose, its strength comes from the records behind it rather than from the software used to produce it.
The submission that actually gets read
A well-built claim can be read in half an hour, and the request, the basis and the effect are all clear from it. A bad one is a large file with no index, which leaves the reviewer hunting for a reason to reject rather than a figure to award.
- A one-page executive summary: the event, the contractual basis, the days claimed and the amount if any.
- The contractual basis: the clauses relied on, quoted.
- A chronology of facts: dates and document references, not general description.
- Records annexed, numbered, and referenced from the chronology itself.
- Programme analysis: the activity, the shift, and its effect on the completion date.
- The financial claim kept entirely separate, itemised, with cost substantiation.
- An explicit request: the number of days and the amount, without open-ended wording.
And avoid the global claim that bundles twenty events into a single figure and asks the reviewer to accept the result. It is the weakest available form and the most frequently rejected. Link each event to its own effect, and where separation is genuinely impossible, explain why rather than passing over it.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between an extension of time and prolongation cost?
An extension deals with time: it moves the contractual completion date so liquidated damages do not run over the extended period. Prolongation cost is a financial claim for the costs actually incurred during that period — site establishment, supervision, plant, bonds. The first can be granted without the second; each needs its own contractual basis and its own proof.
Do we lose our entitlement if the notice is late?
It depends on the wording. Where notice within a stated period is a condition precedent, being late can bar the claim regardless of its merits. Where it is an administrative requirement, the effect is usually limited to the prejudice caused by the late notice. Read the clause as written and do not assume leniency.
How is concurrent delay dealt with?
The prevailing practical approach grants the contractor time — because the excusable event was sufficient on its own to delay completion — but not money, since the same cost would have been incurred through their own delay in any event. The detail varies with the contract and the governing law; what matters is presenting the concurrency clearly rather than concealing it.
Is bad weather a valid ground for an extension?
Not automatically. Most contracts require the conditions to be exceptional against the norm for that location and season, and to have actually affected critical activities. That is why a daily weather log and a record of lost hours are what separate a claim that is granted from one returned with "rain is expected in that month".
Should we accelerate if the extension is refused?
Acceleration is expensive and should never be assumed into existence. If you are expressly instructed to accelerate, that is an instruction with a cost that can be claimed. If you accelerate on your own initiative after a refusal you believe is wrong, you carry the cost and weaken the claim at the same time. The correct move is to notify that you are accelerating under reservation and to record the acceleration cost separately.
Daily records that hold up when you need them
Daily reports from site with labour, plant and standing time, dated photographs, and an RFI log with real dates — in Arabic and English.