How do I prove a delay or extension of time (EOT) claim?

The five things every EOT claim needs

• A cause the contract allows. Late drawings or instructions, variations, late access to site, employer-caused suspension, unforeseeable conditions, or authority delays, depending on the contract. Delays that are the contractor’s own risk do not qualify.
• Notice on time. Under FIDIC 1999 and 2017, the contractor must give notice within 28 days of becoming aware, or when it should have become aware, of the event, followed by a detailed claim (FIDIC 2017 Sub-Clause 20.2; FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 20.1). Indian public contracts usually require hindrances to be recorded and an extension applied for under the contract’s own clause. Whether a late notice bars the claim depends on the contract and local law.
• Effect on the critical path. The event must have delayed completion, not just one activity with spare float. That is shown against the accepted programme and its updates.
• Contemporary records. Letters, RFIs and their replies, drawing registers, site instructions, hindrance registers, DPRs, labour and plant records, and photos made at the time. Records written afterwards carry far less weight.
• A delay analysis. A recognised method, such as as-planned versus as-built, time impact analysis or windows analysis, that links each event to the days claimed. The Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol is widely used as a reference.

Where EOT claims usually fail

• Notice sent late, or never sent, for an event everyone knew about.
• No programme update, so nobody can show the critical path at the time.
• Concurrent delay not addressed: the contractor was also late for its own reasons in the same period.
• Records that say “delay due to client” without dates, references or the drawing or instruction involved.
• Days claimed for the whole event instead of its actual effect on completion.

Illustrative case

The Engineer issues revised MEP drawings for Level 3 six weeks after the date in the drawing schedule. The contractor sent an RFI on the original date and gave notice 19 days after the revised drawings arrived. The programme update shows the Level 3 slab on the critical path. The claim has a qualifying cause, timely notice and critical-path effect; the days claimed still need a delay analysis that separates the contractor’s own late rebar delivery in the same weeks. (Illustrative case.)

How AI helps

Titan by NovaKons reads the programme, notices, letters, RFIs, drawing registers and site records together, places them on one timeline, and shows which parts of the claim are supported, which notices exist or are missing, and what evidence is still needed.