There is only one specific purpose of an EOT, and that is to change the date on which the LDs kick in. All other issues such as money compensation are separate issues and should be addressed separately.
The superintendent can extend the date on which the LD kicks in even if the contractor doesn’t make an EOT claim, but it would be very unusual for him to do so because most contractors would see this as an opportunity to go to the next step and claim money for prolongation compensation, even though they are being given breathing space relief from the LDs and should be grateful for that.
Also, the contractor can claim, and the superintendent can agree to a new date, without the necessity of allocating or apportioning the cause or the blame for the delay. Usually, in reality, it is not so straightforward because everyone is greedy and opportunistic. The owner/client doesn’t want to give up the chance to enforce the LD and the contractor likes to cling to the chance to pin the cause of the delay on the owner and claim the prolongation compensation.

I just found the following reference that might be of interest.

http://www.managingprocurement.commerce.nsw.gov.au/ppg/handling_prolonga...

Best regards,
Rafael

Shahul ,

An EOT is usually granted leaving out monetary issues to be resolved latter under a separate procedure, usually a prolongation claim. Keep in mind a claim does not necesarily means going into court, it is a procedure that starts as a request and only in few occasions ends up in court.

From THE SOCIETY OF CONSTRUCTION LAW DELAY AND DISRUPTION PROTOCOL I extracted the following:

…”The benefit to the Contractor of EOT is only to relieve the Contractor of liability for damages for delay (usually liquidated damages (LDs) for any period prior to the extended contract completion date. The benefit of an EOT for the Employer is that it establishes a new contract completion date, and prevents time for completion of the works becoming ‘at large’ (see Guidance Section 1.2).”

…”Where the full effect of an Employer Risk Event cannot be predicted with certainty at the time of initial assessment by the CA, the CA should grant an EOT for the then predictable effect. The EOT should be considered by the CA at intervals as the actual impact of the Employer Risk Event unfolds and the EOT increased (but not decreased, unless there are express contract terms permitting this) if appropriate.”

…”Entitlement to an EOT does not automatically lead to entitlement to compensation (and vice versa) (see Guidance Section 1.6.2).” With this, I had my issues until at a PP topic it was brilliantly explained to me, with a lot of patience, by Andrew Flowerdew under the following:

http://www.planningplanet.com/forum/forum_post.asp?fid=1&Cat=7&Top=62159...

Best regards,
Rafael