EOT claim readiness: at a glance
- When to run it
- Twice. Groups 1 to 3 the week the delay starts, because the notice clock is already running. All eight groups before the claim goes out.
- The check you cannot fix later
- Notice. Under FIDIC 2017 Sub-Clause 20.2.1 and CCDC 2 – 2020 GC 6.5.4 a late notice can bar the extension outright. In Panther [2022] DIFC CA 016 (on the 1999 form) the contractor lost its extension although all but 19 of the 325 days of delay were attributed to the employer.
- The earliest clock
- CCDC 2 – 2020 GC 6.5.4: 10 Working Days after the commencement of the delay, to the Consultant. Commencement, not awareness.
- The record that carries the claim
- The statused schedule update series, in native files, with a narrative for every logic change. In Alares a mid-project logic revision was rejected as making "no sense"; the VA was found responsible for 218 of the 765 days Alares attributed to it.
- The test causation must pass
- Delay to completion, not delay to progress. Delay to non-critical activities gives no extension, however well documented.
- The quantum rule
- Days are counted net, added to the previously fixed completion date, and money does not follow time automatically.
- The FIDIC 2017 second deadline
- The fully detailed Claim under Sub-Clause 20.2.4 is due within 84 days of awareness, as published commentary summarises it. Without the statement of contractual or legal basis in that period, the Notice of Claim is deemed to lapse (subject to the Engineer notifying the lapse within 14 days).
An extension of time claim is ready to submit when every statement in it points to a dated record, the notice was served in time to the right person, and the days claimed come from a critical-path analysis rather than from the completion date. Below is the checklist that tests that, in eight groups a project manager can tick off, plus the red flags that mean it is not ready yet.
Run it twice: groups 1 to 3 the week a delay starts, because the notice clock is already running, and all eight before the claim goes out. A tick means the document exists, you have found it, and you can cite its reference. Each group maps onto the four elements every extension of time claim must establish; the law sits on the linked pages, not here.
This is a working checklist, not legal advice. The executed contract, its amendments and the governing law decide what your claim needs. Each form's own vocabulary is used: Engineer under FIDIC, Consultant under CCDC, Superintendent under AS 4000.
1. Contract and entitlement
The qualifying event is rarely where claims die, but it decides which clause you claim under, who you write to, and whether money follows.
Have you read the executed contract, not the printed form?
Special, Particular and supplementary conditions routinely change notice periods, add conditions precedent and delete deeming protections. Work from the signed set.
Which clause makes this a qualifying event?
Name it. FIDIC 2017 Sub-Clause 8.5 has no general "beyond the Contractor's control" limb, so if no ground or cross-referenced Sub-Clause applies there is no extension. Under CCDC 2 – 2020 the causes sit in GC 6.5.1 to 6.5.3.
Does the event give time only, or time and money?
Separate gateways. FIDIC 2017 Sub-Clause 8.5 grounds (c), (d) and (e), and CCDC 2 – 2020 GC 6.5.3, give time only.
Are the event's own conditions proved?
Exceptionally adverse weather (FIDIC 2017 Sub-Clause 8.5(c)) needs a long-run baseline; a variation needs the instruction; employer delay needs the obligation and the date it was missed.
Which date is the claim moving, and does the contract prescribe a method?
Claim against the defined term (Time for Completion, Contract Time, Date for Practical Completion, a Section). A contractually mandated analysis method or claim format governs.
2. Notice
Notice is the only element you cannot rebuild afterwards, and the cheapest to get right. The letters, with placeholders and send-by rules, are on delay notice templates for AS 4000, FIDIC 2017 and CCDC 2; the law is on notice and time bars.
Was a notice actually served, as a notice?
A monthly report, programme narrative or meeting minute is not one. The notice must come from the party claiming: Steria v Sigma Wireless [2007] EWHC 3454 (TCC).
Was it on time, measured from the right trigger?
FIDIC 2017: Notice of Claim within 28 days after you became aware, or should have become aware, of the event (Sub-Clause 20.2.1). CCDC 2 – 2020: 10 Working Days after the commencement of the delay (GC 6.5.4). AS 4000: a prompt delay notice (cl 34.2), then a written claim within 28 days of when you should reasonably have become aware of the causation (cl 34.3), as secondary summaries give the 1997 edition; confirm the period and clause on an AS 4000:2025 contract. See notice and time bars in Australia.
Did it reach the person the contract names?
The Engineer under FIDIC: Panther [2022] DIFC CA 016. The Consultant under CCDC 2 – 2020 GC 6.5.4. The Superintendent under AS 4000.
Did it go through the notices clause, and can you prove service?
Address and method come from the contract; email is not always enough (AIA A201–2017 requires certified or registered mail, or a courier with proof of delivery, for notice of a Claim: see the US notice page). Keep the transmittal and the receipt.
Did you serve the separate money notice?
Under CCDC 2 – 2020, GC 6.6.1 is a separate timely Notice in Writing of intent to claim money, with no fixed period. It goes to the Owner, and under the OAA/OGCA supplementary conditions to the Consultant as well. See notice and time bars in Canada.
Does the notice name every basis you may rely on?
A notice on one contractual basis may not preserve a claim later run on another. Notify broadly; re-notify when the theory shifts.
Is the delay continuing, and are the follow-ups diarised?
Under FIDIC 2017 Sub-Clause 20.2.6, as commentary summarises it, interim claims go in at monthly intervals and a final claim within 28 days of the end of the effects. Under CCDC 2 – 2020 one notice suffices for a continuing cause.
Under FIDIC 2017, did the Engineer object within 14 days?
If not, the Notice is deemed valid (Sub-Clause 20.2.2), though the Employer can still dispute it when the Engineer determines the Claim (Sub-Clause 20.2.5, as commentary summarises it). Record the date either way.
3. Records
The records decide which analysis you can run, and that set closes long before the dispute. This group follows the SCL record categories and the dependency table on records and evidence. Under FIDIC 2017 the contemporary records relied on form part of the claim (Sub-Clauses 20.2.3 and 20.2.4, as commentary summarises them).
Is there an accepted baseline programme, in native format?
Logic, constraints, calendars and narrative, with the acceptance (or refusal) in writing. Without an agreed datum, impacted as-planned and time impact analysis are unavailable in practice.
Is there a statused update series covering the delay window?
Dated, with actual progress, logic changes and any extensions granted, as SCL Protocol Core Principle 1 expects. The single most important record in the claim.
Does every update explain its logic changes, in native files?
In Alares, CBCA 6149 (2025), a mid-project logic revision was rejected as making "no sense"; the VA was found responsible for 218 of the 765 days Alares attributed to it. A PDF programme cannot be interrogated for logic or float.
Is progress recorded as actual start and finish dates?
Percentage complete gives no defensible as-built: George Sollitt, 64 Fed. Cl. 229 (2005).
Do daily reports, labour and plant records cover every day of the window?
Labour by trade and area, plant, weather, areas worked, obstructions, instructions received. The drop in manpower is often the first hard evidence of when an impact began, and the same records carry any cost claim.
Are the correspondence, notices and instructions registers complete?
Every letter, notice, direction and response in date order, with who gave it and in what medium.
Are the RFI and submittal logs dated on both sides?
Issue and response dates, so response time can be computed. That is how design-caused delay is proved.
Are photographs timestamped, located and filed against the event?
Independent corroboration of the as-built. For weather or supply events, also hold the long-run weather record or the procurement log.
Where Storia fits
Most ticks in the records group fail for the same reason: the document exists somewhere, but nobody can find the dated version that proves when the delay commenced. Storia turns drawings, RFIs, schedules, correspondence and field reports into one source-linked project record, built as the work happens, so every entry in the claim traces back to the document it came from. Teams can resolve the delay in coordination, or move from records to a claim-ready case in days instead of rebuilding the timeline months later.
4. Causation and critical path
The question is whether the event delayed completion, not some work. Choosing the method is covered on delay analysis methods compared.
Does the claim show the chain from event to completion?
Event, the activity it hit, that activity's place on the critical path in the update current at the time, the effect on the completion date. Delay to non-critical work gives no extension (SCL Core Principle 5).
Is the method named, and can your records carry it?
State the method and why the record set supports it. A method the records cannot carry is the first thing attacked.
Is each event analysed separately?
Individuated where possible, composite where necessary, global only as an express fallback. SCL Core Principle 17 discourages global claims, and Walter Lilly v Mackay [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC) makes them a matter of proof, not a safe harbour.
Was the claim made close to the event?
SCL Core Principle 4: applications should be made and dealt with as close in time as possible to the delay event.
Can someone else reproduce the analysis?
Keep the native files, inserted fragments and settings. If an AI-assisted tool touched the analysis, preserve its inputs and outputs.
5. Concurrency and float
The other side's first two arguments. Find them first. See concurrent delay.
Have you identified your own delays in the same window?
List every contractor-risk delay over the period and say in the claim why each was or was not critical.
Do you know which concurrency rule applies?
It depends on the governing law and the executed contract, and answers range from a full extension to none on identical facts.
How much total float was there when the event hit?
Absent contrary provision, SCL Core Principle 8 grants an extension only to the extent employer delay is predicted to reduce total float on the critical path below zero. Check for a float clause.
If you slowed down deliberately, was it recorded at the time?
Pacing must be evidenced as an election made at the time. Asserted afterwards, it is contractor delay.
6. Quantum: the days, and the money if claimed
Do the days claimed equal the days the analysis shows?
Not actual minus contract completion: that is a total time claim, the weakest form there is.
Is the extension added to the previously fixed completion date?
Assessment is net. A contractor already in culpable delay gets the delay the event caused, not a date re-fixed from the event.
If money is claimed, are costs priced for the weeks the effect was felt?
Not the overrun at the end of the job, and mapped to the same weeks as the critical-path window. See prolongation and delay costs.
Are your own delay costs separated, and nothing claimed twice?
Where the delays overlap, the record must permit the split. Overhead already inside a variation valuation, or lost productivity that belongs in a disruption claim, comes out.
7. The document
The drafting, step by step, is on how to write an EOT claim. This group checks the finished draft.
Does it state the contractual basis, clause by clause?
Under FIDIC 2017, as commentary summarises Sub-Clause 20.2.4, the fully detailed Claim is due within 84 days of awareness; without the statement of contractual or legal basis in that period, the Notice of Claim is deemed to lapse (subject to the Engineer notifying the lapse within 14 days).
Does it list the notices already given?
Reference, date, recipient and clause for each.
Does every factual statement cite a record?
A dated chronology with a record reference against each entry, and a records schedule (R1, R2 and so on) attached.
Are causation, days and cost set out separately, with reservations?
So the assessor can accept one part without rejecting the rest. Reserve further delay, further cost and disruption.
Could someone who was never on site follow it, and is it served like a notice?
Test it on a colleague who was not there. Send it to the named person, through the notices clause, with proof of service.
Red flags: the claim is not ready if
- The notice is "in the minutes". Serve one now, say it is late if it is, and take advice.
- Nobody can say when the delay commenced. Under CCDC 2 – 2020 that date starts the notice clock; on every form it anchors the analysis.
- The days are actual minus contract completion. A total time claim, not a causation case.
- The updates are PDFs, stop mid-window, or change logic without explanation. The strongest methods are gone, and the tribunal stops giving you the benefit of the doubt. (Opinion.)
- Progress was recorded as percentages. There is no defensible as-built.
- Your own delays are not mentioned. The other side will mention them.
- Chronology entries have no record references. Every one will be challenged.
8. After submission
Is the assessor's deadline diarised, and the step if it passes?
The contract sets how long the Engineer, Consultant or Superintendent has to respond.
Are the updates and records continuing?
For a continuing event, update the claim on the contract's cycle; record any extension granted in the next programme update (SCL Core Principle 1). Log each request for particulars and answer on time.
Do you know the dispute clause's own clocks?
Referral periods and limitation run separately from the claim. Read the clause now, not after a rejection.
Are you about to sign away the delay?
A change order or payment release can settle time and cost you meant to keep. See change order releases.
The checklist on one screen
| Group | The question | Ready when | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Contract | Which clause, which gateway? | Qualifying clause named, conditions proved | Extension of time |
| 2. Notice | In time, to the right person, in the right form? | Notice, proof of service, any money notice on file | Notice templates |
| 3. Records | Can each fact be proved from a dated record? | Baseline, native updates with narratives, dailies, registers, photos | Records |
| 4. Causation | Did the event move completion? | Critical-path chain, per event, by a method the records support | Methods |
| 5. Concurrency and float | What were you and the float doing? | Own delays and float addressed | Concurrent delay |
| 6. Quantum | How many days, what money? | Net days; cost for the impact weeks | Prolongation |
| 7. Document | Can a stranger check it? | Basis, notices, cited chronology, analysis, reservations | How to write |
| 8. After submission | What happens next, and when? | Deadlines diarised, records continuing, no unreserved releases | Notice and time bars |
Frequently asked questions
What should an EOT claim include?
The qualifying event and clause; the notices already given; a dated chronology citing a record for every fact; a critical-path analysis showing delay to completion; the net days; any cost, priced for the weeks the effect was felt; reservations; and a records schedule. Under FIDIC 2017, commentary reports the fully detailed Claim must include a statement of contractual or legal basis within 84 days.
When should I submit an EOT claim?
Serve the notice first, within the contract's period: 28 days from awareness under FIDIC 2017 Sub-Clause 20.2.1, 10 Working Days from commencement of the delay under CCDC 2 – 2020 GC 6.5.4. Then submit the detailed claim within the contract's second deadline, and as close to the event as possible (SCL Core Principle 4).
What records do I need for an extension of time claim?
An accepted baseline, statused updates in native files with narratives for logic changes, daily reports, labour and plant records, the correspondence and notices register, RFI and submittal logs dated on both sides, and timestamped photographs. The records you hold decide which delay analysis methods you can run.
What if I missed the notice deadline?
Serve the notice now, state that it is late and why, and take advice. Under FIDIC 2017 the Engineer has 14 days to object to a late Notice, failing which it is deemed valid, though the Employer can still dispute it at the determination stage (Sub-Clause 20.2.5). Rescue arguments such as waiver or the owner's actual knowledge are fact-heavy, and in Panther the contractor lost its extension although all but 19 of the 325 days were attributed to the employer.
Authorities
- Society of Construction Law, Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd Edition (February 2017) 2nd Edition (February 2017), Society of Construction LawCore Principle 1: the programme should be updated to record actual progress, variations, changes of logic and any extensions granted, and the parties should agree the record regime at the outset. Core Principle 4: applications should be made and dealt with as close in time as possible to the delay event. Core Principle 5: an extension is granted to the extent the employer risk event is reasonably predicted to prevent completion by the then prevailing completion date, in general where it impacts the critical path. Core Principle 8: absent contrary provision, an extension is granted only to the extent employer delay is predicted to reduce total float on the critical path below zero. Core Principle 17 discourages global claims.Core Principles 1, 4, 5, 8 and 17 wording checked against the Protocol PDF on 27 September 2026. The delay-analysis methods summary table is at paragraph 11.5 (see Delay analysis methods compared).Protocol →
- FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction (Red Book), 2nd Edition 2017, reprinted 2022 Sub-Clause 8.5 (Extension of Time for Completion), Sub-Clauses 20.2.1 to 20.2.6 (Claims for payment and/or EOT)As published commentary summarises the 2017 form: Notice of Claim to the Engineer within 28 days after the Party became aware or should have become aware (20.2.1), with an express bar; the Engineer has 14 days to say a Notice is late, otherwise it is deemed valid (20.2.2); contemporary records (20.2.3); a fully detailed Claim within 84 days, and if the statement of contractual or legal basis is not given in that period the Notice of Claim is deemed to have lapsed (20.2.4); interim claims at monthly intervals and a final claim within 28 days of the end of the effects where the event has a continuing effect (20.2.6).FIDIC text is paid and was not read. Clause numbers, periods and the lapse rule are attributed to commentary: Fenwick Elliott (International Quarterly, issue 25) and Diales ("The claims process under FIDIC 2017") agree on each. The 1999 form differs (EOT 8.4, notice 20.1).Fenwick Elliott commentary →
- CCDC 2 – 2020 Stipulated Price Contract Canadian Construction Documents Committee, GC 6.5 (Delays) and GC 6.6 (Claims for a Change in Contract Price)GC 6.5.4 bars any extension for delay unless Notice in Writing of the cause of delay is given to the Consultant not later than 10 Working Days after the commencement of the delay. GC 6.6.1 separately requires timely Notice in Writing of intent to claim money. GC 6.5.3 delays give time only.GC 6.5.4 read verbatim (Verification Register TAX-3). CCDC text is otherwise paid, so only clause numbers and headings are printed.CCDC →
- Panther Real Estate Development LLC v Modern Executive Systems Contracting LLC [2022] DIFC CA 016 (judgment 12 May 2023), DIFC Court of AppealThe 28-day notice under Sub-Clause 20.1 of an amended FIDIC 1999 Red Book was a condition precedent: the contractor lost its extension of time although all but 19 of the 325 days of delay were attributed to the employer. A valid notice may be short, provided it reaches the Engineer in time.The DIFC applies DIFC law, not the onshore UAE Civil Code. Persuasive, not binding, outside the DIFC.DIFC Courts →
- Steria Ltd v Sigma Wireless Communications Ltd [2007] EWHC 3454 (TCC), Technology and Construction CourtThe notice must emanate from the party claiming, so minutes recorded by a third party will not do.Find Case Law →
- Alares Construction, Inc. v Department of Veterans Affairs CBCA 6149, 7071, 7597 (21 March 2025), Civilian Board of Contract AppealsAlares attributed all 765 days of delay to the VA and sought extended general conditions for 653. The Board found the VA responsible for 218 days of critical path delay and Alares for the rest, and rejected a mid-project logic revision in Alares's schedule as making "no sense".Not a release case: the Board upheld the reservation of rights in modification P00005.CBCA →
- George Sollitt Construction Co. v United States 64 Fed. Cl. 229 (2005), United States Court of Federal ClaimsDelay affecting only non-critical activities does not delay completion. The expert's analysis was discounted for, among other things, progress reported as percentages rather than actual start and finish dates.Court of Federal Claims →
- Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC), Technology and Construction Court (Akenhead J)No rule of law bars a claim that does not allocate loss to each event: the global approach goes to proof. The claimant must still comply with notice requirements, prove the events and causation, and support it with contemporaneous evidence.The synthesis is commonly pinpointed to a paragraph number taken from secondary sources and not verified against the judgment, so none is given here.Find Case Law →
About this material Library content is general information about construction claim practice, not legal advice. Entitlement, deadlines and procedure are governed by your own contract and by the law of the place the work is performed. Reviewed October 6, 2026 · Report a correction