Extension of Time (EoT) Under FIDIC Contracts

What Is an Extension of Time (EoT) in FIDIC? 

Under FIDIC contracts, an Extension of Time (EoT) is a contractual entitlement that allows the Contractor additional time to complete the Works when delays occur due to causes defined in the contract. The purpose of EoT is to adjust the Time for Completion fairly and to protect the Contractor from delay damages when delays are not the Contractor’s fault. 

EoT provisions are mainly governed by Sub-Clause 8.5 (Delay Damages) and Sub-Clause 20.2 (Claims for Payment and/or EoT), depending on the FIDIC edition in use (1999 or 2017). 

Grounds for EoT Under FIDIC 

• Variations instructed by the Engineer 

• Delays in drawings, approvals, or instructions 

• Employer-caused delays or interference 

• Exceptional climatic conditions 

• Unforeseeable physical conditions 

• Force majeure / Exceptional Events 

• Suspension of Works not caused by the Contractor 

EoT Claim Procedure Under FIDIC 

1. Notice of Claim 

The Contractor must give notice within the contractual timeframe (typically 28 days) after becoming aware of the delaying event. 

2. Detailed Claim Submission 

A fully detailed claim must be submitted, including: 

• Description of the event 

• Cause and contractual basis 

• Demonstration of delay to completion 

• Updated programme and delay analysis 

3. Engineer’s Assessment 

The Engineer reviews the claim and makes a fair determination in accordance with the contract. Failure to comply with notice requirements may result in loss of entitlement. 

EoT Assessment Methods Commonly Used Under FIDIC 

Time Impact Analysis (TIA) 

Time Impact Analysis involves inserting delay events into the approved programme at the point in time when they occurred. This method is widely accepted for complex projects and aligns well with FIDIC’s prospective approach to delay assessment.  

Key Features  

• Delay events are inserted into the approved baseline programme at the point in time they occurred. 

• Assesses the prospective impact of each delay on the Time for Completion. 

• Requires an approved and regularly updated programme. 

• Widely accepted by Engineers and Dispute Boards under FIDIC contracts. 

• Best suited for complex projects with multiple variations and delays. 

• Demonstrates a clear cause-and-effect relationship between events and delay. 

Advantages 

• Widely accepted under FIDIC by Engineers and Dispute Boards 

• Clearly demonstrates cause-and-effect 

• Aligns with FIDIC’s prospective delay assessment approach 

• Effective for complex projects with frequent changes 

• Allows transparent and timely EoT evaluation 

Limitations 

• Requires an approved and well-maintained programme 

• Highly dependent on schedule quality and logic 

• Time-consuming and resource-intensive 

• Difficult to apply retrospectively without records 

• Vulnerable if programme updates are inadequate 

Window Analysis 

Window Analysis divides the project duration into defined periods (windows) and analyses delays within each period. It is suitable for long-duration or heavily disrupted projects and provides a detailed cause-and-effect analysis. 

Key Features 

• The project duration is divided into defined time periods known as windows. 

• Delays and progress are analysed separately within each window. 

• Allows assessment of multiple and overlapping delay events. 

• Useful for long-duration or heavily disrupted projects. 

• Relies on contemporaneous records and updated programmes. 

• Helps identify responsibility for delay in each period. 

• Advantages 

• Provides detailed insight into delay progression 

• Effective for long-duration or disrupted projects 

• Handles concurrent delays more clearly 

• Relies on actual progress data 

• Supports allocation of responsibility per period 

• Limitations 

• Requires extensive and reliable records 

• More complex to prepare and explain 

• Can be time-consuming and costly 

• Requires agreement on window definitions 

• Not ideal for short or simple projects 

As-Planned vs As-Built Analysis 

This method compares the original baseline programme with actual progress achieved. It is generally suitable for simpler projects but may be less reliable where numerous changes and delays have occurred. 

Key Features 

• Baseline programme compared against actual progress 

• Measures overall delay to completion 

• High-level and simplified approach 

• Often used as a preliminary analysis under FIDIC 

• Limited focus on individual delay events 

Advantages 

• Simple and easy to understand 

• Quick and economical to prepare 

• Suitable for straightforward projects 

• Provides a broad delay overview 

• Can support more detailed analyses 

Limitations 

• Weak in demonstrating detailed cause-and-effect 

• Poor handling of concurrent delays 

• Does not reflect dynamic project changes 

• Unsuitable for complex or varied projects 

• Less persuasive in formal FIDIC disputes