Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

Time Impact Analysis & Case Law

1 reply [Last post]
A. F.
User offline. Last seen 3 years 29 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 19
Groups: None

Time Impact Analysis (TIA) appears to be the favoured method of analysis by the SCL Protocol and cases such as Great Eastern Hotel.

My understanding is that TIA retrospectively takes account of both client and contractor delays as the project progressed.

However, for a JCT contract the case of Henry Boot v. Malmaison states that where there are two concurrent delays then the contractor is entitled to an EOT for the period of client delay notwithstanding the current effect of other events (i.e. contractor delays).

In such a situation where you have a JCT contract and delays caused by both the client and contractor have occured, then surely TIA should not be the favoured method to use as the contractor should be granted the EOT regardless of any client delays (providing he can prove that they had a critical effect).

In such a situation would it not be better to use the ’impacted as planned’ method?

Have I missed something here?




Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 24 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 959
Groups: None

The SCL Protocol does recognise this - 1.4.5 "The Employer Risk Event should be analysed first."

At a given update, by impacting the Employer event before the Contractor event, the effect of the Employer event will be seen and not masked by a Contractor delay - the result will therefore concur with Malmaison.

But it also says in 1.4.7 "Analyses should be carried out for each event separately and strictly in the sequence in which they arose..." (repeated elsewhere in the Protocol)

They are actually both right, but admittedly it could be clearer.

If the above is not done (Employer first), then you would have to inspect the results and manually find those events that might entitle the Contractor to a further EoT.