CASE STUDY | EXTENSION OF TIME | CIVIL ENGINEERING CONDITIONS | HIGHWAYS

The contractor claimed an extension of time for 5 delay events. The employer’s consultant accepted 1 and assessed nil time and nil cost for the other 4. The extension was then granted in full, together with the costs of the additional works, including prelims. The delay analysis behind that result was prepared by Sumit Bhattacharya MAPM, engaged as planning consultant to the contractor through S B Project Controls Limited, which trades as VERTX Project Controls.

At a glance

Client	Regional civil engineering contractor
Employer	Local authority
Works	Road and footway widening, new drainage, kerbs and surfacing, built under a full road closure
Contract	Works order under a civils framework, standard UK civil engineering conditions
SBPCL (VERTX) role	Delay analysis, EoT programme, item-by-item technical rebuttal related to time, joint review support
Contract period	20 weeks
First assessment	Time for 1 of 5 delay events. Nil cost.
Outcome	Extension granted in full in calendar days and the costs related to the additional works including prelims

The job

This was a 20-week widening scheme on a busy city corridor, built under a full road closure. The programme had to work around event days, a Christmas moratorium and, after reopening, restricted working hours. Around 50 variations were instructed over the life of the works.

What went wrong

Only 9 days after starting on site, the CCTV inspection found the existing sewers blocked. They couldn’t be surveyed, and drainage over a 270 m length stopped. The employer then redesigned the outfall: a new 100 m carrier drain down the middle of the carriageway. That meant waiting for the design, then procurement, then installation. Nothing else in that section could be built until the drain was in. Next, a gas main diversion by the statutory undertaker forced a full demob over December. Ramp works were then added after remob.

The assessment

The contractor claimed for 5 events. The employer’s consultant accepted 1 (the gas diversion) and gave nil time and nil cost for the other 4. The reasoning was that removing those events from the programme didn’t move completion, so they were never truly critical.

What SBPCL (VERTX) did

Sumit Bhattacharya reviewed the assessment against the EoT programme and found where the check had failed.

While the drainage was stuck, the contractor kept building wherever it could: other sections, other variations. That work sat in float that the delay itself had created. The consultant read that activity as proof that the drainage wasn’t driving completion. Take the delay out properly and the float goes with it; the other work drops back to non-critical, and completion comes forward. Each event was tested this way, one at a time. Completion moved every time.

The rebuttal answered the assessment item by item, in the consultant’s own format, so no point could be passed over. It also dealt with concurrency head-on. Concurrent delay needs 2 competing delay events, one on each side, both affecting completion. Here there was only 1, and the contractor was mitigating around it.

The programme was then updated with actuals to a February data date, and the extension was split into windows: pre-diversion, demob, post-remob and the added ramp works. The demob had already been paid as a separate variation, so it was shown on its own line (194 days without it). Time and money stayed separate, leaving no room for a double-recovery argument.

Outcome

The analysis was accepted and the extension granted in full.

Why it matters

“Not truly critical” is one of the commonest grounds for a nil EoT assessment, and the check behind it is rarely written down. The answer is a logic-linked programme that shows the path, a test the other side can repeat and a clear line between mitigation and concurrent delay. The approach follows the principles of the SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol (2nd edition): analysis on an updated programme, with float and concurrency treated properly.

• Contractors and subcontractors: get the programme and the argument right before an assessment hardens into a dispute.
• Solicitors: every step traces back to the programme and site records, so the analysis is ready to go forward to adjudication if needed.

Facing a nil or partial EoT assessment? Call us today or book a consultation.

Project details are anonymised. The analysis described was prepared by Sumit Bhattacharya MAPM while engaged as a planning consultant to the contractor through S B Project Controls Limited, now trading as VERTX Project Controls.