An Extension of Time (EOT) claim is one of the most important — and most misunderstood — tools available to a contractor facing delay on a construction project. Handled well, it protects your programme and your commercial position. Handled late or poorly, it can leave you carrying liquidated damages for delays that were never your fault.
What Is an Extension of Time Claim?
Most standard forms of contract (JCT, NEC, FIDIC and their regional derivatives common across the UAE and UK) set a date for completion, backed by liquidated damages if that date slips. An EOT claim is a formal request to move that completion date, on the basis that the delay was caused by something outside the contractor’s control — an employer-side default, a neutral event, or a change instructed by the employer. If the claim succeeds, the completion date moves and the contractor is relieved of liability for the delay it covers.
Common Grounds for an EOT Claim
The specific grounds always depend on the contract, but the most frequently used include:
- Late possession or access to the site
- Late or incomplete design information and instructions
- Variations and changes to the scope of works
- Exceptionally adverse weather, measured against historical records for the location
- Employer default, such as late payment that stops work, or failure to appoint key parties
- Force majeure or other neutral events named in the contract
Notice Requirements and Time-Bars
This is where most claims are won or lost before the analysis even begins. Many standard forms require notice of a delay event within a fixed period — commonly around 28 days — measured from when the contractor knew, or should have known, that the event would cause delay. Miss that window and the claim can be time-barred entirely, regardless of how strong the underlying case is. If there is any doubt about whether an event will affect completion, the safer course is almost always to issue notice and reserve the right to substantiate later.
What Evidence Do You Need?
A successful claim rests on three things: a valid contractual entitlement, a delay event that is properly proven, and a clear causal link between that event and completion. In practice this means:
- An accepted baseline programme that reflects a realistic, achievable plan
- Contemporaneous records — site diaries, correspondence, RFIs, minutes of meetings, photographs, weather logs
- An as-built programme showing what actually happened, tied to the same records
- A recognised delay analysis method (as-planned vs as-built, impacted as-planned, time impact analysis, or windows analysis) appropriate to the contract and the quality of records available
- An honest assessment of concurrent delay, where the contractor was also running late for its own reasons at the same time
Common Pitfalls
- Late notice, or no notice at all, even where the delay itself is genuine
- Global claims that bundle several events together without showing what each one actually caused
- Programmes that were never properly baselined or updated, leaving no reliable point of comparison
- Treating the claim as a one-off exercise at the end of the project rather than a running discipline of recording and updating as the project proceeds
The single biggest factor in whether an EOT claim succeeds is usually decided months before the claim is ever written — in how well the programme and site records were kept along the way. Building that discipline into a project from day one is most of the battle.