Ahmad,

"the thing is why SCL protocol/or/English law do not consider contractor concurrent delays to reduce his EOT entitlement. forgive me I’m not that law experience guy"

An EoT protects the contractor from paying the employer damages for a delay to the completion of the project beyond the original or subsequently extended completion date. Therefore, irrespective of his own delays, if the contractor is delayed from completeing on time then he gets an EoT - otherwise the employer would gain from his own wrong by being able to charge damages for a period when the employer himself caused delay to completion.

So contractor gets EoT for protection and employer can not gain from his own delay. Pretty fair and reasonable.

Also, an EoT does not automatically entitle the contractor to any money. The contractor has to find the correct grounds on which to claim this. The usual English law starting position if there is employer/contractor concurrent delay is that there is no entitlement at all to money during that delay period.

Other positions exist such as the contractor is entitled to be paid whatever he can demostrate he has spent as a result of the employer delay only, (SCL position and more along American principles).

Therefore the contractor does not gain from his own delay but -and there’s always a but - to apply concurrent delay you have to define concurrent delay - and that’s often where the arguments start!!!!!!!!

Hi Ahmad

If you go to the website of the Society of Construction Law (SCL) and download the 2002 protocol you will find in section 4 a treatise on Delay Analysis.

This was an early attempt to codify good planning practice but a lot of its findings - such as the use of IAP method - is to my mind now out of date.

Good luck in your research.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Ahmad,

Depends whether you are talking about time or money.

English Law:

Time, (EoT), concurrent contractor delays do not prohibit or reduce the contractor’s entitlement to an EoT so therefore can be ignored, (although I would not totally ignore them).

Money for employer delay, concurrent contractor delays do prohibit or reduce the contractor’s entitlement to money so cannot be ignored.

The order that employer and contractor delays are impacted may also be relevant depending on whether you are calculating time or money and the method used.

Hi Ahmed

"So in this matter the contractor is benefits from his own delays due the ignorant of such change came from the engineer/the client".

I am sorry but I do not understand the point you are making here.

No delay analysis system would allow the Contractor to benefit from his own delays.


Regarding your second point - the status of the programme depends entirely on the words in the contract.

If the programmes is set as a Contract Document then any change to the programme by default of either party is a breach of contract.

It pays to remeber that the EoT clauses in any contract are there to protect the Employers right to extract LAD’s from the Contractor if he delays the works.

As I said before IAP can only be used where work is in progress.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Ahmed

The Impacted As Planned method can only be used when work is in progress.

The baseline programme therefore should be adjusted for completed work before the delay is impacted.

The SCL protocal says that only employers delays should be impacted and that contractors delays should be ignored.

Personally I think the SCL is wrong on this point because you will never be able to demonstrate concurrency.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Ahmad

The rule in the Uk is that if a contractor is in culpable delay of say 60 days and at the same time the Employer causes a delay of 5 days then the contractor is entitled to an EOT of 5 days on the original contract end date.

The contractor will get relief of LAD’s for the five days but will not recover any overhead costs because his own delay is dominant.

For ongoing work the Impacted as Planned method is the only one that can be used.

But beware the contractor’s programme is not rigged to maximise any such impact.

Best regards

Mike Testro