EOT, concurrent delay, disruption and time entitlement — a practitioner reference

When it applies

Whenever a delay event impacts the critical path and falls within an EOT clause — typically employer changes, late information, exceptional weather, force majeure or differing site conditions. The EOT preserves the contractor's right to relief from liquidated damages and may, depending on the cause, carry an entitlement to prolongation cost.

Evidence needed

Notice issued within the contractual window, an updated baseline programme, contemporaneous progress records, a delay event log, and a properly executed delay analysis (TIA, windows or impacted as-planned) demonstrating critical-path impact rather than mere float consumption.

When it applies

Common on complex projects where employer-driven design changes coincide with contractor productivity issues. The treatment of concurrency varies by jurisdiction and contract: SCL Protocol, Malmaison, apportionment and 'but-for' approaches all produce different EOT outcomes.

Evidence needed

Daily delay logs marking which events were on the critical path each day, fragnets isolating each cause, and a clear statement of which method the analysis follows. Concurrency claims fail when the analysis tries to retrofit a method to the answer.

When it applies

Late information, late access, employer-instructed variations, suspensions, unforeseen ground conditions where the contract assigns them to the employer, or breach of an implied duty to cooperate.

Evidence needed

Same as EOT, plus a properly built prolongation cost model — site overheads, head-office overheads, finance charges and idle resources — segregated from disruption and acceleration costs.

When it applies

Slow mobilisation, low productivity, defective work, subcontractor failure, supplier non-performance and contractor-side design errors.

Evidence needed

Honest internal reporting. A contractor who suppresses non-excusable delay loses the credibility needed when a genuine EOT event later arrives.

When it applies

Out-of-sequence working, stacking of trades, repeated late information, design churn, restricted access and excessive variations — all of which slow the labour curve without necessarily moving the end date.

Evidence needed

Measured-mile, baseline productivity studies, earned-hours analysis or industry productivity loss tables (MCAA, Leonard) tied to contemporaneous records. Disruption is rarely won on opinion alone.

When it applies

Directed: the employer instructs the contractor to recover or maintain the date despite a legitimate EOT event. Constructive: the employer denies a valid EOT, leaving the contractor to accelerate to avoid LDs.

Evidence needed

Evidence that an EOT was properly applied for and not properly granted, plus contemporaneous records of the acceleration measures actually deployed and their incremental cost.