Extension of time claims

EOT claims built around entitlement, causation and evidence.

Prepare, review or strengthen extension-of-time submissions with a clear contractual narrative and programme analysis that withstands scrutiny.
Overview

A persuasive EOT claim joins the contract, event and programme.

An extension-of-time claim is stronger when it identifies the contractual route to relief, satisfies notice and substantiation requirements, explains the event, demonstrates its effect on completion and addresses mitigation and concurrency.

Support can range from a targeted review of an existing submission to preparation of the programme analysis, chronology and claim narrative for a complex multi-event matter.

Scope of support

Focused analysis across the issues that matter.

Contractual entitlement review
Notice and procedural compliance assessment
Delay-event definition
Critical-path causation analysis
Concurrency assessment
Mitigation and acceleration review
Claim structuring and narrative
Response to determinations and counter-analysis
Typical engagements

Flexible support for a defined decision or workstream.

Prepare an EOT submission
Independent review before resubmission
Respond to an EOT determination
Support negotiation of time entitlement
Deliverables

Clear outputs designed for their intended audience.

EOT claim or claim section
Entitlement matrix
Delay-event chronology
Programme analysis and exhibits
Claim-strength review
Response memorandum
Negotiation brief
How the work is approached

A structured and auditable process.

01

Identify the contractual mechanism and deadlines.

02

Define each event and supporting record.

03

Test the baseline, updates and critical path.

04

Link the event to the affected work and completion.

05

Address mitigation, concurrency and residual uncertainty.

06

Prepare a concise, auditable submission.

Frequently asked questions

Practical answers before the engagement begins.

Can you improve a claim already submitted?
Yes. The review can identify gaps in entitlement, records, programme logic, causation and presentation, then prioritise the amendments most likely to improve the claim.
Should every delay event have a separate analysis?
Events should be defined clearly, but related events may be assessed together where that better reflects the actual sequence and avoids artificial fragmentation.
What if notices were late or incomplete?
The contractual and factual consequences need to be assessed carefully. A technical analysis should not assume that programme impact alone resolves procedural entitlement.
Discuss a matter

Clear advice starts with understanding the issue.

Contact Constructive Advisory to discuss a construction claim, delay issue, programme review, dispute-support requirement or potential collaboration.