Application and Assessm en t of Extension

of Time Cl aim: Fin dings of Case Stud ies

Conducted in M alaysia
M .S. Mo hd Da uuri, M. Othman, H. Abdul-Ra hman and C. C. Lim

Ce n tre for Project and Facilities Man agem ent (CPFM)

Facult y of the Built Environme nt
Un ivers ity of Ma la ya

A b stract:
It is a co mmon phe nomeno n for cons truction projects to have ap plica tions fo r extensio n o f time .
Ma ny proble ms are enco un tered in pra ctice in the a p p lica tion .1I1d prcpnrn uon o f extens io n o f
time claims. A stud y wa s cond ucted to id entify the main probl em s enco untered in the a p p lica tion
and assessmen t of e xtension o f tim e claim in selected co ns truc tion projects ill Maln ysia . Three (3)
case s tud ies ha ve been used 10 Investt get c the exten sio n o f lime issues. Plndings fro m the s tudy
revealed that local con trac tors us ua lly fnil 10 co mply wi th the con trac t p roced ur al req uiremen ts to
!It1hl1lil IIl1wl)' llu llfiL'llliun uf llL·I,I)' 'Uld luwu dlrrlculty 111 l-!l..-' llIoI1HlI',,1I116 IJwl 1' onuucmom Ior
extens ion of lime. The main problem faced by contract ad minlstrntors is that contractors tend to
"inflate" their extension of time entitlement with the intention to ma ximise their claims. Adherence
to the agreed pro cedure in prepa ring an d eval ua ting of delay cla ims an d the implemen tation of a
se t of agreed s tandardised d elay ana lysis may help to mi ni mi ze the frequency and impact of such
prob lems ,

Key w ords: cons truction cla ims, assessment, contractors, extens ion of titne, va litlity

In troduc tion
In any co ns truct ion co n tract, the con tra cto r
ha s the lega l obliga tion to co mplete a p roject
by the da te for com p le tion or wit h in the dale
for completion. Ho w ever, d e lays always
disrupt the p e rformance of con trac to r's
work. A delay may be caused e ither by the
co n trac tor or e mp loyer, o r even ts for which
neither party is at fault (or commonly known
a s neut ra l even ts) . Th e ge ne ra l p rincipl e
in la w is th at th e co n trac to r w ill no t be
entitled to cla im for extension of tim e or
loss and expense if the d elaying e ven t is
ca used .by h is own fau lt. In th is rega rd ,
Willia ms (200 3) ca te go r ised dela ys int o
e xc usab le / co m pensa ta b lc, excu sab le /
non-compensat a bl e a n d non-e xcu sabl e /
n o u- compcn sa tnb lc . Ge ne ra lly , th e
con tracto r w ill only be excused and enti tled
for ex tensio n o f time if the dela y is caused by
the e mp loye r or neu tral e ven ts. Excusable
d e la ys tha t ma y a llow reco very of b o th
time a nd moncy arc nor mally dela y caused
by the emp loyer suc h as delay in giv ing
po sses s ion o f s it e, delay in g iv ing
inst ru ct ions, dra w ings, va ria tio n, e tc. In
con tras t, excusable d elays that may allow
so lely on ex tens ion of tim e ar e delay s n ot
ca used by eithe r pa rt y or neu tral even ts such
as strikes, force majeu re, incle ment wea ther,
etc . Most co ns truc tion con trac ts speci fically
list the excusab le del a y for which ex tension
o f time and, loss and expense call be g ranted.
Ext ensi on of Li m e is a ve ry importa n t
pr ovision in any construct ion co n trac t. Th is
p rovision affects the exte n t of con tracto r's

15
JOllmol of D(,s(~11 al/d tha Built Elwirollll/t'lll
liability to pay for liquidated damages if
there is a delay to the completion of works. If
the provision is clea rly d rafted it w ill also
provide the contract administrator w ith the
power to extend the time for completion due
to an act of pr evention by the em ployer. For
instance, in the case of Ttiameso Design«
Scil/. 1311ci. v. Kl/c1lil/g Hotels Scil/. B1Ici. (1993)
3 MLJ 25, it was he ld that if the contract
administrator has no power to extend the
date fo r co mp le tio n due to a n a c t of
pr evention by the emp loyer, the time for
comple tion will be at large and the employer
los t h is righ t to en force the liquidated
damages provisions,
Cla ims by cont rac tors for ex tensio n
of time are almost inev itable in any
cons truc tion proj ect. Much effort has been
put in by con tractors, s ub -contractors,
con trac t adm inistrntors, profess ional
consu lta n ts an d employers in provi ng
entitlemen t or assessing ex tension of time
on cons truction projects (Turner and Turner
1999). For exam ple, wh en ther e is a de lay
to prog re ss of work in a co ns truc tio n
project, it mayor may not have an effect on
the pr oject completio n date. According to
Ad ria n (1988), wher e a de lay to p rog ress
does no t a ffec t the cr it ica l pa th, the
completion date of a project will not be
affected.
Whil e the ge ne ral p rinciple is that a
con tractor sho uld be g ive n more time to
complete a project for delays on critical pa th
wh ich are beyond the con tractor's control,
there have been many probl ems encountered
in practice with regard to the application
and pre para tio n of ex te ns io n of tim e
claim by contractors and analysis o f claims
and proof of e ntitlemen t by contract
ad ministra to rs (Pickavance 2000, Bramble
an d Callaha n 1992).
This pape r presen ts find ings of a
study aim ed to id en tify common problems
encount ered in the application o fex tension
of tim e by contract o rs and to a ss ess
contractor 's claim by the co ntract admi-
nis trator in co nstruction projec ts in the
Malaysian cons truc tion ind us try. It does not
16
cover the topi c of entitlemen t for loss and /
or expense as a result of ex tension of time
gra nted in a project.
Lit era ture R evi ew
Mos t s tandard fnr rns of co ns truct ion
contrac ts require the contractor to provide
notice for applicatio n of extension of tim e.
The common problem encountered is where
a con tractor fails to se rve a no tice of delay
although the con trac t stip ulates that it is a
co nd itio n p recede n t to the co n trac to r's
entitlement to extension of time. The topic of
cond ition pr eced ent is di scussed at leng th
by Pickavance (2000). In s uc h instan ce, is
the contrac t administra tor still obliged to
eva luate and/or g rant an ex tensio n of time
to the contractor? If a con tract stipulates that
servi ng of no tice by the contractor is a
condition precedent to extension of time, a
s tric t interpret ati on of s uc h cla uses w ill
mean that the contract o r w ill lose his right
to extension of tim e sho uld he fail to serve a
delay noti ce to the employe r.
Usu a lly, co ns truc tio n co n tracts
require the con tractor to no tify the employer
or contract administra tor of delays which
are likely to affec t the comp letion da te as
soon as th e de lays occur o r within a
reasonable time. The contractor is required
to apply for an exte nsion of time and prepa re
the releva nt suppor ting doc ume nta tion to
be submitted to the contract administrator
for ev aluation. Whil e this ma y ap pear to be
a s traight-forward procedural requirement,
there have been various problems identified
as follow (Turner & Turner 1999, Pickava nce
2000):
a) Whe ther a no tice of claim by th e
contractor is a no tice precedent to
entitlement to exten..sio n of time;
b) The e ffec t of the co n t rac t
administrato r's fail u re to grant
ex te nsio n of time for e mployer's
default;
c) The effect of the contrac tor's failure to
serve a proper no tice o f delay;
 Applicatio1l nlld Assessl/lent of Extension ofThneClain:
d) Non-agreement as to the ca us e and
cffcct of delays;
e) Non-agree men t on u pd a ted ma ster
p rogramlnc which form s the bas is of
establishing entitlement to extension
o f time; an d
Q Su fficiency of sup porting infor mation
provided by contra ctor.
The co mmo n probl em in the cons truction
ind us t ry is th a t con trac to rs d o n ot
su fficie n tly u n d e rs ta n d thc ir ob ligations
unde r the no tice p ro v ision s. As a res ult o f
the contrac tor 's failure to adhere to specific
notice procedures there have been IlMllY
d isputes arising from non -giving of notic e
or late notification. A change in project
requiremcnt m ay b e ca use d by thc
e mployer's act s of prevention, for e xample,
lat e pos session of s it e or variatio n
in s truc tions by e m ploye r gi ving rise to
delays. The con tractor 's arg ument in s uch a
case wo u ld be th at w here th e delays arc
ca used by " ac ts o f p reve n tio n" by the
emp loyer, it wou ld be u n fair to expec t the
contractor to raise a notification of de lay so
as to safeguard the con tractor's en titleme nt
to e x tens io n o f ti me for Stich acts o f
pre vention arc beyond the contracto r's
control (Robinson, et.al. 1996). The employer
sho uld n o t be allowed to benefit from his
ow n "default". In such circumstances, eve n
if the contract administrator has not received
a timely notice, he 111\.1St con sider w he the r
an exc usable event has occurred.
TIle rationale for the contractor to raise
a noti ce of d elay is to allow thc employer
and contract adminis trator to know of the
even ts that have affected or is likely to affcct
the con tracto r's progress of work. Even if the
con tract ad minis trator has knowledge of the
circu ms tances giving rise to an en titlemen t
to an e x tens io n of time, w it ho u t th e
contractor's advice, he may be ignorant of
the impact on the contracto r's progrcss of
w ork. Timely notification of delays o r
potential delays w ill all ow sufficien t time
for the con tract ad minis trator to find wa ys
to m inimise or o verc ome any delaying
even ts. Becau se o f the importance of tim ely
notice by co ntracto r in allowing the contract
administrator suffi cient time to mitigate any
delaying ev ent s, most s tandard form s o f
cons truction con trac ts require the contractor
to s ubmit a notice of delay wit h in a
reasonable time .
In LOlldoll Borougl:ofMertoll v. StOllley
HllgII Leacu Ltd (1985) 32 BLR 51, Vine lott J.
w as ask ed to consider wh at wo u ld
co ns titu te a "w ritten notice" wi thin the
mea ning of clau se 23 of JCT form 1963. Whiie
taking the view that the question of w hether
any particular document was or was no t a
"w ritten notice" was clear ly a questi on of
fact, the court accep ted the arbi trator's view
that :
a) A notice mus t be in writing;
b) It must specify a ca us e of d elay;
c) The progres s of the Works mus t
already have been affec ted ; and
d) It need not ta ke a ny special form of
words p rov ided it is s u ff ici e n tly
p recise to put th e con trac t
adminis trator on notice of the de lay.
T he co ntractor is gene ra lly req uired to
p rovid e cer tain relevan t de tails in his no tice
of cla im in cl uding identif yi ng rel e vant
events giving rise to delays, the da te and time
of d elay, the cause of d elay and its duration,
and the impact on progress of wor k (O 'Brien,
1976). Non-provision of such information
ma y result in lat e g ra n ting of extension of
time or even rejecti on o f the contractor's
ex tension of time claim. The contra cto r is
req uired to id en tify each de lay ing event an d
the an ticipa ted effec t of eac h event on the
comple tion date rath er than to submit a
global claim for de lays d ue to many events.
If the con trac tor's reco rd keeping is poor, as
in ma ny cases, he may n ot be ab le to
s ubs ta n tiate ea ch delay but on ly ab le to
subm it a global claim. Dispute w ill mo st
often arise since the e mp loyer is inclined to
rejec t the con tra c to r's cla im ev en if the
employer recogni ses that the contractor has
a valid rea son for dela y.
17
Journal of Design and tIm Buill Enoironment
501ne co ntrac t administrators a rc
of th e v iew th a t submi ssio n o f a we ll
docume nted ex tensio n of time claim is a
co n d it io n precede nt to th e co n trac t
administrator' s oblig ation to g ran t an
ex tension of time. If the co ntrac tor fails to
s ubm it rel e vant det ail s to the co ntrac t
admi nistra tor then the la tter is not oblige d
to evaluate the contractor's claim or at the
very least delays in gran ting an extens ion of
time until the releva nt in forma tion has been
submitted. Co ntractors often view this as a
delaying tactic by the contract admini strator
or even accusing the con tract administrator
o f n ot ca rry ing ou t h is impartial duty to
ev aluate for the contracto r's entit lement to
extension o f time especially whe re d elays
are ca used by the employer. This problem is
addressed by the Malaysian PAM 1998 form
w hic h stip u la tes that even if the co n tractor
fa ils to sub m it rel e vant d et ail s, it is th e
architect's duty to form his own op inion and
grant a 'fair and reasonable' ex tens ion of
time to the contractor.
Comprehensive records to prove the
entitlement to ex tension of time must support
a valid claim . Too of ten, co ntractors are able
to sho w that so me thing w en t w rong on a
p roject but unable to p rove the time loss as a
resu lt of a pa rticula r p roblem main ly because
there is a lack o f records to identify the exac t
ca use of the problem (Powe ll-Smith & Sims,
1989). Good con tempora ry recor d keeping
by the con tractorhelps a void confu sion and
ass ist in reaching agreements by defi ning
facts, roles and responsibiliti es o f the par ties.
In practice, it is far too often in Malays ia that
con trac tors tend to under- v alu e th e
importance of good record kee ping. Poor
quali ty pro ject docum en tation reduces the
chance of getting an extension o f time claim
of being app ro ved by th e co n tra c t
administrator and increases the like lihood
ofa d isp u te (Collier, 2001). Whil e contractors
w ho do not keep good site records may have
saved some administration cost, poor project
do cumentation present s se rious d ifficulties
in id en tifyin g causes of delays es pec ially
where the em ployer ca uses the d elays. In
18
such inst an ces, the con trac tor's right to
ex tens ion o f time as well as los s and /or
expense is being co mpromised. Eve ntually,
the con trac tor may end up s pe nd ing a lot
more ex penses in de fendi ng his rights and
substa nt iating his cla ims.
Both the Ma laysian PAM 1998 a nd
CIOB 2000 forms req uire the con trac tor to
give a notice of delay within a reasonable
time of the ev en t giv ing rise to delay and
to provide such de tails and particulars as
a re ne ces sary to as si st th e con trac t
administrator in making his decision. When
submitting an exten sion of time claim, the
con trac tor should id entify de tails rega rdi ng
the event, inclu d ing in fo rma tion on: the
delaying even t, w hen the date the event took
place, material circums tances giving rise to
the dela y, th e durat ion o f delay, and its
impac t on progress of wor k
While I' AM 1998 and C IDB 2000
contain expressed provision s requiring the
co ntractor to su bm it detailed particulars of
their d elay claims, the Malaysian PWO 203A
and !EM 1989 a re silen t w ith rega rd s to this
ob ligat ion. This leaves room for d isp utes
whereby the contractor w ill argue tha t he
has no obligation to submit any details but
that the con tract adminis trator is under a
d u ty to g ran t a 'fai r an d rea s on ab le '
ex tension of time.
The contract admi nis trator is on ly
requ ired to asce rt ain w hether the cause
s tated by the contractor in the notice is a
relevant ev ent and whe ther as a result o f the
re leva n t even t the co m pletion o f the works
is like ly to be dela yed. While it appears tha t
the burd en o f p rov ing e n ti tl e me n t to
ex tension of time rests with the contractor,
co ntrac to rs ha ve o ften argued that the
contract ad mi nis tra tor also ha s a duty to
g ra n t a 'fair and rea sonab le' ex tens io n
o f tim e notwithst and ing in suffici ent
information submitted by the contracto r in
pa rti cul ar w here de lays a re caused by
em p loyer's default (Adrian, 1988).
Due to aforem entioned rea sons, it is
an ticipa ted that the problem s enco untered
in the a p p li cat io n and as se ss me n t of
 Applimfio ll andAssessl1I f.'nt of Extension ofTime Claim
extension of time claim may also cause delay
to the completion of p ro ject. A s ur ve y
co nd uc ted by Fa ridi a nd El-Say eg h (2005)
sho w s th at apa rt from prepara tio n a n d
app rova l of drawings, inadequate early
pl anning of the project a nd slo w ness of the
o w ner's decision makin g process which
hav e been ranked h igh by the Contractors
and Consultan ts, lack uf co m m u n ica tion
and co -ord inat ion be twe en the pa rties
invo lved in cons truction, conflict betw een
the contractor and consultant, lack of data
in es tima ting the ac tivity d ura tion and
resources and inadequa te progress review
have also been identified as causes of project
delay.
Accord ing to Ng, e t a l, (200 4), th e
results obtained by using the delay analysis
techniques w ill d ep end on th e amount of
information, tim e and resources available for
the analysis. Therefore, contractor's prope r
re cord ke epin g and tim e ly appli cat ion
are esse n tial to e na b le the co n trac t
ad ministrator in providing the necessary
le vel o f fee d b a c k o n th e a p p lic a tion of
ex tens ion of time. It ha s been s ug gested tha t
in assessing the extens ion time claim 'the
most imp or tant asp ect of the wo rk is to bring
so me transparen cy int o the so mew ha t
negl e ct ed asp ect o f uncertainties
surro u n d ing th e pl an nin g p ro ce s s,
providing a better u ndersta nding o f the
iss ues involv ed and, hopefully, a basis for
negoti ati on a nd im proved interdisciplinary
rela tion s' (Ng, e t a l, 2004) .
M e thodology
Accor ding to Yin (1984), the type of research
methodology to be ad opted b y a research er
d epends on th e type o f research q uesti on
posed, the ex tent of control a resea rcher has
ove r actual behavioural ev ents and the
degree of focus on existing against historical
e ve n ts. The case study m ethod w as se lec ted
as it provides real information required to
un derstan d the und erlying ca us es and
effects of the topi c un d er study. Accord ing
to Pa tto n (1987) , 'ca se s tu d ie s become
particularly useful w here one needs to
und erstand some particul ar problem or
situation in great depth, and where one can
id enti fy cases rich in inform a tion' . Most of
the res e arch q ues ti ons arc "w ha t"
(ex p lora tory) a nd " ho w" (ex p la na to ry)
q ues tions , For instance, whatare the common
pr oblems enco un tered by contrac ting parties
in dealing with extensions of time issu e
and, ho w co n trac to rs and con trac t
admini s trat or s app ly and as s es s the
extension of time claim, respectively.
A case s tudy will generate em p irica l
data through investigation on contemporary
phenomena w i th in its re a l- li fe co n tex t,
ref er red to as " rea lity" (Wh ite 2000). As the
intention of this research work is to examine
the current extensions of time issues in
construction industry, case s tudies wou ld
enable the research to look a t the whole
situation and obse rve the inter-relationship
of parameters during the claims process.
Accord in g to Yin (1984), in case
s tu d ies, triangulati on cou ld be cond ucte d
by using multipl e so u rces of d a ta. The need
for triangulation arises from the ethical need
to co n fir m th e va lidi ty of the research
proces s. Thus, thi s s tu dy used multiple
sources of evidence consisting of relevant
correspondences, wo rk programm e, other
relevant project do cuments, and structured
interview s w ith releva nt pa rties for the
se lec te d projects. Such evidence w oul d
enabl e the researcher to sc rutinise and
add ress a broad e r ra nge of cur rent
ex tens io ns of time issu es. Sub s equent
in terviews w ith relev ant p ro ject perso nne l
were co nd uc ted to va lida te the case stud y
findings.
Tnl'geted Cnse St udies
Case studies are ge neralizable to theoretical
proposition a nd n ot to populations o r
universes. A case study does not represent a
'sample', and the researchers' goa l is to
expand and ge neralize theories (analytical
ge ne rali za tio n) and not to e nu me ra te
frequencies (s ta tist ica l genera liza tio n) (Yin
1984). Three (3) case s tudies have been
selected for analysi s and eval uation .
19
[ournol of Design and tim Buill EJl v;rollltJellt
The subjects of case s tudies were
completed construction projects in Kuala
Lump ur utilising d ifferent standard form s
of contract. The projec ts we re selected based
on the willingness of the contractors to sha re
information. A balanced representation w as
th ought to b e ob ta ined by using three
different p rojects, each with a different form
of contract. One project used the Malays ian
Institute of Arch itects (MIA or PAM) 1998
form of con trac t, th e s eco n d used th e
Institution of Eng ineers Malaysia (lEM) 1989
form, and the third used the Public Works
Depa rtm ent (PWD) 203A form. In general,
PAM 1998 form of co n tr ac t is used for
building projects, !EM form is used for
engineering projects, while PWD form is
ma in ly u s ed fo r b u ildi ng a s we ll a s
engineering projects. Therefore, the types of
cons tructio n projects used for the case
s tud ies cover the building and enginee ring
projects as Can be deduced from the detailed
background of the case stud ies. To overcome
the obsolescence issue the se lected projects
sho uld be beyond the year 1995.
All three case s tudies were based on
inf or mati on ob tain ed from pro ject
doc uments including ex tracts o f relevant
records such (IS contract doc uments, notice
of delay, work programlllC, correspondence
and records relating to ex tension of time
issues, minutes of meeti ngs, progress reports,
rainfall records and other da ta furn ished by
the relevant co mpanies . The case s tudies
and ana lysis ar e presented to highlight bot h
the legal and technical as pec ts of cla ims
submitted by contractors, validity of the
grounds claimed , sufficiency of the metho ds
used in arriving at the number of d ays
claimed and the met hods which contract
ad minis tra to rs used in eva lua ting
contra ctors ' claims as recommended by
Egglestone (1997) in the process ofapplying
and ev aluating ex tension o f time.
Case S tu dy N o.1
This case study was on the construction of 3
blocks of 16-storey apartmen ts tha t used the
PAM 1998form of con tract. The original date
20
for com pletion as stip ulated in the contrac t
was 18110 Oc tob er 2002 . The Co n tra c tor
claimed an extension of time on the grounds
of late s tart, late issuance o f instructions by
Engineer, variation works and unsuitability
of designed p iles. The Cont ractor submitted
the notice of delay on 19110 July 2001 for items
summarised in Tabl e 1. The Co n tractor had
provided tes t rep orts, mi nutes of me etings,
fax transm ittals, ins tructions an d other
re le van t do cuments, s uc h as cont rac t
documents, original work programm e and
updated wo rk programme in the application
for an ex tensio n of time.
Case S tu d y No.2
This seco nd case s tudy is on a sewerage
project that used the !EM 1989 for m of
con tract. The Co n trac to r's claims for
ex tens ion of time were mostl y related to
infrastructureworks.TIle date forcompletion
as s tipulated in the contract was 20th May
2000. Th e Contractor claims were based on
his entitlement on the grounds of de lay of
wo rk caused by objections from ad jacent lan d
owners, objections from residents and the
bus ines s co nu n u n ity, variation works,
inability to sec ure materials due to reasons
beyond the contractor's control and poo r soil
cond ition on site. The chrono logy of eve nts
is summarised in Table 2.
It is no ted that th e extended
comp let ion date remained o n 3"-1 January
2002 a n d the la st exten sion of time
applica tio n wa s to be determined by the
Enginee r.This case s tudy focuses on events
lead ing up to delay on the las t exten ded
completion date.The Contractor's claims are
summarised in Table 3. The Con tractor
claimed for an extension of time totalling 92
days (after taki ng into considera tion of
concurre nt dela ys) fro m the last extended
da te of completion, i.e , 3'" January 2002 to
S ilo April 2002.
Th e Co n tr ac to r h a d pro v id ed
docurnen ts and inform a t io n in the
application for extens ion of time incl uding:
the releva nt clauses from the conditions of
contrac t, letters from consu ltants regarding
 Application and Assl'ssmeut of EXII!IJsiOll afTime Cla;m
ba ckground and sy nops is of the relevant
eve nts and the Engineer's Instructions on
temporary co nnectio n of existing force main
to newly laid mild steel pip e, constru ction
of rece iving pi t at pu mpi ng s ta tio n,
reinstatem ent of damaged property during
pipe jacking works and remova l of temporary
co nnection.
Case S tudy No.3
The third case study is on the cons truction
of a lO-storey administration building. The
date for completion was s tip ulated to be 5"
Aug nst 2000. Th e Contra ctor had claimed
fo r an extension of time by re asons of
excep tionally incle men t w eath er, variation
w orks, and finan cial cash flow problem as a
result of econo mic crisis in Asia and non-
payment by the Public Wor ks Dep ar tment
(PWD) on the "ag reed" va riation wo rks.
Prior to the applicati on of ex tension
of time No. 2, the Co n tractor had submitted
an applica tio n for extensi on of time No.1 in
June 2000 on the gro unds of force majeure
ha ze, (s u spens io n of works u p o n
cn v iro n mc n ta l impa ct analysis) and
excep tionally inclement weather (from 6'"
Ma y 199 7 to 3 1" March 2000) . In th e
ap plica tion for extension of time No .1, the
Contrac tor highli gh ted that the tota l de lay
was 11 Y, mon ths b ut that he only applied
for 9 months extension o f time. An ex tension
of time of 9 months had been subseque ntly
gra n ted b y PWD th u s ex te n di ng th e
completion da te from S'" Au gu s t 2000 to 5'h
May 2001. The Con trac tor issued a notice of
del ay and ap p lica tion for extension of tim e
no. 2 on 26'h April 2001 w ith out sup plying
an y relevant s upporting d ocuments. Up on
request from PWD, the Cont ractor submi tted
a brief repor t on application of extensio n of
tim e no . 2 on I S" Ma y 2001. Contra ctor 's
cla im for ex te ns io n o f tim e no . 2 is
summariz ed in Table 4. Based on Table 4,
the Contractor claimed tha t the project could
be de layed up to a tot al of 24 'Iz months. By
implementing various mitigating mea sures,
the Con trac to r applied for a total of 16
mon ths of extens ion of tim e, bringing the
completi on da te from 5'h May 2001 to 5'h
Sep tember 2002.
In the applica tion for the exten sion of
tim e th e Co n tra c to r h a d provided
informa tion based on the project method
sta teme nt, original as planned programme,
as-built programme, rainfall records (daily
ra in fall records from 1998 to 2001 from
Meteorological Departm ent), haze records,
deta ils o f Gov ern me n t instruction to cease
works during periods of ha ze, relevant
correspo nde nce and minutes of meetin gs,
cor resp ondence relating to delays in su pply
and sources of alterna tive ma terials, copies
of instructions issu ed , progress reports and
relevant drawings.
A n alys is a nd Dis cu s si ons
The follow ing di scussion of the case s tud ies
will focu s o n the following aspec ts:
a) Admissibility of contractor's claim-
to obs e r ve whet her th e re is any
con tractual provisions enti tlin g the
con tractor to claim
b) Valid ity of the grounds claimed by
contractor - to observe whet her the
g rounds for claim are justifiable
c) Suffici en cy of contractor's claim - to
obser ve whethe r s u bs tan tia tio n
submi tted by contrac tor is eno ugh to
pr ove the contracto r's entitlem ent
d) Su bs ta n tia li ty of contra ct
admini strator 's as sessm en t - to
ob s erve whether c o n trac t
administrator is able to provid e valid
reasons for his decision
Admissibility ofcontrnctor's claim
It is the Contrac tor 's obliga tion to notify the
Con tract Ad ministrator of an y delay events
as stipulated in the cond itions of contrac t
(see Tabl e 5). Th e central issue is whether
the Con trac tor 's late not ificat ion will a ffect
his enti tlement to extens ion of time . One of
the Con tracto r' s a rg umen ts is tha t the
notifi cation requiremen t is no t so s tringent
where the delay is cause d by the Employer'S
21
[our nal of Design and 11/0 Buill Environment
default o r even ca used by neut ral events. It
is arg ued that the Con tractor sho uld be
entitled to extension of time based on the
equitable p rinciple that an Em ploye r should
n ot benefit from hi s own d efault in
preventing the Contrac tor from meetin g the
projec t's de adli ne. The wo rs t occasion is
fo und in C a se S tudy N o .3 whe re th e
Contractor made an application for extension
of time no.2 on 261h Apr il 2001, 10 days before
the imposition of liqu idated dam ages on the
Con tractor by the Em p loyer. Nevertheless,
in all three (3) case s tud ies, the Architect!
En gineer / Su pe rin tende n t O fficer (5.0.)
proceed ed to e va lua te the Co ntracto rs'
submissio ns ,
Validity of thegrounds claimed by contractor
In Case Stud y No .1, the Co ntractor clai med
that the la te s tart of the p roject w as due to
the requ est to stud y and evalua te proposals
by the Architect to use a proprietary pre-cast
sys tem in lieu of con ve ntional co ns truction
meth od to save cost and time. It is legitimate
to rely o n Cla use 23.7(v) of PAM 1998
prov ided that th ere is an Archit ect' s
instruction and it falls specifically under any
one of th e Cl ause 23 .7(v) w hi ch s ta tes
'compliancewitll Architect's instructions under
Clauses 1.2, 11.2, 21.1 01" 21.4'. Man y of the
claims in Case Study No.1 is based on Claus e
23.7(v i) for d elay due to la te recei p t of
ins truction from the Eng inee r. How ever,
C lause 23.7(vi) st ip u la tes a go ve rning
procedure that mu st be complied with before
reli ance ca n be made on this clause. It
req ui re s that th ere must be a s pecif ic
ap p licati on ma de by the Contrac tor before
he can succeed in claiming. For exam ple, the
Co ntrac tor contended that he had app lied
for an instruction on 23'" No vember 2000
and has tak en this dat e as the da te from
which the delay began.
T h e is su e then is w h e th e r the
Contractor's letter dated 23'· November 2000
can be considered as "a specific application"
req uired by Clause 23.7(vi). The Contractor's
lett er dat ed 23'· No ve mber 2000 di d no t
appear to have spec ifica lly ap plied for an
22
instruction from the Engineer. Such leiter
appears to be as mere no tification. However,
the Contractor's letter dated 27" December
2000, which clea rly expressed a specific
application and can be considered to be a
p roper request in co mpli ance w ith th e
requirement of Clause 23.7(v i ). Though the
Contractor has the en title me nt to claim,
defen ce is available to the Em ploye r on
pro cedural gro unds to chall eng e the
Contractor's entitlement to extensio n of time.
Ano the r issue in Case Stud y No.1 is
the Contractor's claim that the.designe d pile
fou nd ations for Block C we re inad equate
resulting in n ume rous piles being broken or
unset. Due to this circumstance, the Engineer
ha d ins tru cted for ad d it ional piles to be
driven which amou nted to a variation to the
con tract. If this was the case , the Contractor
would be entitled to claim for extension of
tim e. Ho wever , there was a d ispu te on this
issu e when the Eng ineer co ntend ed that it
was no t a variation, as the broken pi les or
un set piles were caused by the Co ntractor's
failure to exercise due care and to adop t
app ropriate driving techniques s uitable for
the typ e o f so il encountered .
In Case Stud y N o.2, objections from
lot ow ners, residen ts and bu siness
comm uni ty had pr evented the Contractor
from commencing pipe jacking wo rks on the
da te s tated in the work prog ra mme. Thi s
hindrance is consid ered to be be yond the
Contractor's control. Based on Clau se 38(b)(i)
and Cla use 43(g ) of the !EM 1989 form of
contra ct , th e g ro u n d upon whi ch the
Co ntrac tor based their claim is va lid. The
Contrac tor is also entitled for ex tension of
time under Clause 43(e) of lEM 1989 form of
contract for varia tion works, Delay -was
caused in the pr ocess of obt aining the
appropriate cou pling and T-jo int size due
to the uncertaint y of the d iameter of the force
mai n. The basis of this claim wa s that time
was requir ed to so urce an d ob tai n the
coupling an d T-joint from any supplier. This
delay event wo uld have given the Con tractor
the entitlement for an extension of time under
Clause 43G) ofI EM 1989 form of contrac t for
 ApplicatiolJ and Assessment of Extension of Time Clobn
inability to secure mate rials as are essential
to the prope r carrying out of the works d ue
to reaso n beyond the con tractor's control
and which h e co u ld not reasonably ha ve
foreseen at tender stage . How ever , Clause
47(j) of !EM was dele ted in the sig ned copy
of the cond itions of contract and there is no
other prov ision in the contract, which allows
the Engineer to gran t extension of tim e
ca used by such event. As s uch, time for
completion will be a t large.
In Case Study No.3, the Co n tractor
had claimed fo r ex tens ion of time on the
ground of Cla use 43(b) of PWD 203A form
of co n tract: " by reosolls of OilY exccptionalb]
inclement uieother", This is a relevant eve nt
for w h ich the Con tracto r is e n titled to
extension of time ifhe is able to de mo ns trate
t hat th is has cau sed d e lay to proj ect
comple tion. Th e Contractor had also claimed
for an extension of time on th e ground o f
Cla use 43(e}of PWD 203A s tand ard for m of
co ndi tions of co n tract: " by reasoll of 5.0.'5
illslr llctiolls iss lied under cialise 5 hereo],
provided lltal sucl, illslmc liolls or" 1101 isslled
due 10 OilY def alllt or breact, of contract by tile
Contmctor ornllY sub-coiltractor nominated or
oihertoise", In this instan ce, the Co n trac tor
referred to theS.Oo's instruction for variation
work found in Clause 5(a}(i} of PWD 203A
standard form of contract. Th is is a relevant
even t for which the Co n trac tor is entitled to
ex tens ion of time if he is ab le to de mo ns trate
th at thi s h as ca used d e lay to proj cct
co mp letion.
On the o the r hand, ther e is no vali d
gro u nd fo r th e co n trac to r to clai m fo r
ex tension of time as a result o f financial cash
flow prob lem or non-p a y m ent by th e
Employer. Two basic remedi es are available
to the contractor - (1) determi nation of the
con tract, a nd (2) referring the di spute to
arbi tration. Unlike o ther standard forms of
con tract (PAM 1998 and !EM 1989), there is
no con trac tua l right in FWD 203A form for a
Contractor to determinate the contra ct w here
there is a br each of con trac t by the Empl oyer .
However, th is sh all not stop the Co n trac tor
from clai rning for da mages under C01111110n
law and for the Con tractor to determ inate
the contract if the breac h is so significant so
as to go to the roo t of the con trac t. Sho u ld the
co n tractor decides to go for arbit ration ,
Clause 54 o f PWD 203A form of contrac t
s tates that the Contractor mu st first invoke
Cla use 54 by re ferring a ny d isp ute a risi ng
from the contract to the S.O. for a d ecision.
If th e S.O. fail s to give a d ec ision
wi thin 45 days, then the Con tractor ma y
proceed to refer the di spute to a rb itration.
However, the Contractor had done ne ither
of the above. Cash flow prob lem caused by
fallen of Mal aysian Ringg it va lue a nd non-
paym en t o f ag reed variat ion works are not
valid grounds for claiming extension of time.
There is the refor e n o con tractual grou nd for
the Con tractor to claim for extension o f time
for cash flow problem.
Sufficiel/cy of contractor's claim
In Ca se Study No.1, if the Contracto r is to
a rg ue that the late star t of the project had
caused delay, b y rel ying on Clause 23.7(v )
of PAM 1998 form of co nt rac t, ther e mu st
first be a n instruction issued by the Architect.
For the ins truc tion to be va lid a nd e ffec tive,
it mus t be iss ue d in writing or confirmed by
the Contractor in writing pursuant to Clause
2.5. An e xamina tion of the Contractor's
supporting documents showed that there
was no correspondence from the A rchitect
req u es tin g the Con trac to r to eva lua te
p roposa ls to use a p rop rieta ry sys tem. There
Inay be verbal communi cation exchanged
ins tead. Such verb al co mmunication may
only be mere proposal a nd ma y n ot a mo un t
to a valid instru ction under the con tract. In
tile absence of any w ritten doc umen t relating
to the issu e, the case would be one' s word
against the other, where the discov ery of
ev idence relating to the s ta temen t cou ld only
be made by way o f exami nation and cross-
examina tion o f w itne sses.
It is do ub tful w he the r the lat e receip t
of not ice as alleged by th e Co n trac tor really
a ffected th e p rogress of th e works. Eve n
though the Contrac tor had pr ovid ed relevant
supporting information, he di d no t submit
23
jOllfl/nl of Design and IIw Built Environment
an y justifi cati on for additional tim e ca used
by th is even t to show the ca us e and effect of
this delay even t. However, for d elay event
noA & 5, th e Co n trac to r had s u bm itte d
relev ant information including minu tes of
site meeting, work programme, site records
and geo-technical eng inee r's report. Based
on these, the informat ion submitted was
sufficient to sup por t the claim for delay even t
no . 4 & 5.
fn Case St udy No.2, it is found that
the Con tracto r's su p porting d ocu ments d id
not provide s ufficie nt informati on as the
details and calculation of the number of
delay da ys claimed a re not known. The
Contractor may find it di fficult to carry ou t a
proper d elay analysis based on Criti cal Path
Me thod to demonstra te the impact tha t each
delay eve n t ha s on the co m pletion d ate.
However the ina bility to d em on strat e these
impacts does not mea n tha t the Co ntractor
is not ent itled for any extens ion of time due
to events due to the Emp loyer's defaul t. Only
PAM 1998 form o f co n tract requires the
contractor to submi t detai ls and particulars
of expec ted effect of delay, the estima ted
le n g th o f d elay a n d ex te nsi o n o f time
req uired . 1EM 1989 and PWD203A forms of
contract do no t contain express provision
requi ring the con tractor to subm it s uch
particulars.
As for Case Stud y No .3, the wea the r
records from the Meteorological Department
were used as comparison aga inst average
project weather records. While this may show
that the weather has been unu sua l, it may
prove no thing in respect of d el ay to the
progress of the works. For the Con tractor to
succeed in this claim, the Contractor must
be able to demonstra te that the weather on a
pa rticu lar date ha s be en e xcep tiona lly
inclementcompared to the average we ather
cond ition for, say the past 10 yea rs, and tha t
this has an effect of disrup ting the work on
that day. The informa tion submitted by the
Contractor had failed to demon strate this.
Base d o n Con t rac to r ' s ori g in al w ork
programme, earthwo rk and piling w ere
con sidered critical activities to the project's
24
completion date. The increase in earthwo rks
is inevitable d ue to the change in earthwork
profi le as directed b y the Emp lo yer.
Similarly, as a result of the revision in the
platform level, the piling lay out an d d esign
needed to be rev ised. T he in for mat ion
subrnitted to supportclaims on the increased
earthw ork and piling qu an titi es w er e
sufficient,and they are conside red variation
un de r Cla use 24(b) of PWD 203A form of
contract.
Snbstantinlitsjof Contrac t Administrator's
AsscssJltclt t
In Case Stud y No .1, th e A rch itect gran ted
no extens ion of time for the project's late start.
It was d ecid ed th a t even if the Contractor
wa s able to prove tha t a va lid instruction
had been issued, the claim d id not fan within
th e ambit of th e speci fic even ts referred to
under Cla use 23.7(v) of PAM 1998. As for
the lat e ins truction , th e ap p roach adopted
was considered inapp ro pria te because it d id
not clearl y d emonstrate how the lat e receipt
of instruction affec ted the act ua l p rog ress of
the works and subsequently affec ted the
comple tion date. There was no jus tification
to granting an extension of time since the
works we re in fact n o t d el ayed . Having
review ed all the facts on the va ria tion claims
und er th e delay even t n o.3 and 4, the
Architect granted a total ex tension of time of
86 days for the disruption caus ed to progress
of wo rk.
Th e m ain issue s u rro und ing the
un suitability of d esigned p iles re lates to a
technical matter that need s to be determined
initi ally be fore a ny con tra ct ual liab ility ca n
be identified. The Con tracto r claimed that
the de signed pile founda tio ns for Block C
were inadequate resulting in numero us piles
bein g bro ken or unset. Th e Eng ineer alleged
tha t the Con trac tor d id not practi se p ro per
pili ng m e thods and th a t they failed to
p erform and comp le te t he w orks a s
reason ably ex pec ted b y a n ex perienc ed
con tractor . Th e Engineer noted that the Site
Ag ent and Gen era l Manager lacke d
ex pe rience and engineerin g knowledge
 Applicatioll (Iud AssesslI1ellt of Extension a/Time Ctabn
pertaining to p iling wo rks which resulted
in lack ofcontrol ofwork on site. He therefore,
recom mended the Con tractor's claim fo r
delay event no.5 as not valid. Conseq uently,
the Architect concur red wi th the Engineer's
explanations and grant ed no ex tensio n of
time to the Con trac tor for this event.
The vali di ty of a par ty 's technical
argumen t canno t be determined until all
evidence and tes tim ony from bo th parties
have been ana lysed and whe re appropriate,
expe rt op inion so ug h t. The piling work's
durat ion for Blo ck C was prolonged
approx imately 3 months (double the peri od
originally planned ). In deriving to wh o is
liable for such delay, the facts need to be
exa mi ned close ly . The o n us is on the
Contractor to prove his case to secure the
entitlement to an ex tens ion of time. Hav ing
rev ie w ed all the de lay ing e ve n ts, th e
Architec t proceede d to eva luate the master
progra m me, w hi c h s ho w ed th a t th e
Cont rac tor int en ded to execu te the3 blocks
almos t conc urre n tly . It appeared that 3
groups of res ources were alloca ted to
cons tr uct the 3 blo cks and ther e was no
d irec t depende ncy o r sha red resources
be twee n the activi ties in the 3 blocks. Based
on Cont ractor's up -dated wo rk programme,
the Architect carried ou t a delay an alysis.
He had to co ns id er. co ncur re n t dela ys,
cha nge in cri tica l p ath, float a nd ot he r
relevant issu es. Acco rdi ng ly, the Architect
granted the Co ntractor 30 days extension of
time having reviewed the eviden ce submitted
by bo th th e Co n trac to r and th e p ro ject
Engineer.
The Engineer in Case Study No.2 did
not provide any rationale for his decision
on how and why a total of72 day s extensions
of time had been granted to the Contractor.
The Engi neer issued his ex tension o f time
certifica te on 19'" Au gu s t 2002 based on the
Contractor 's notific ati on on 5'" Ap ril 2002.
Tak ing into acco un t that the Co n tract's
Extended Da te for Completion was on 3'·
January 2002, prompt eval ua tion of an
ex tension of time claim was critical to the
project. It can be ar gu ed that the Engi nee r
may not have met his co ntractual obliga tion
s tipulated by Clau se 43 of the !EM 1989 form
of con tract which provides tha t:
...ifill theopinion of lite Engineer,thecompletion
of the Works is likely 10 be delayed or has beel/
delayed beyolld ihe Dafe for Completion staled
ill the Appendix 0 /' beyolld allY extended Dale
for Completion .. .the Engineer shall as SOOIl as
he is able to estimate IIIe lenglh of the delay
beyolld thedale01' limeaforesaid make ill1Vritillg
a fail' alld reasonable ex lellsioll of tim e for
compte!ion of the Works, ...
Most s ta nd a rd forms of co n tr ac t
req uire the co n trac t ad miriis trnto r to
d e tennine e xtension of time wi thi n a
reasonable time. Time is crucial especially
for va riation w ork so that the Co ntrac to r
co uld have s ufficie nt time to reprogram the
w ork. In the Sing ap o rean cas e o f Linn 50011
Construction Pie Lid v Gllall Qiall Realty Pte
Lid (2000) 1 SLR 495, it had been decided
that substantial de lay in issuing ex tension
of time by contract ad ministra tor without any
ex p la na tio n w ould r end er th e de la y
ce r ti ficate in valid. It is the Eng inee r's
obliga tion to gra n t a fair and reasona ble
ex tensi on of time as soon as it is po ssible for
him to estimate the impact of de lay to project
completion.
The 5.0. in Ca se Study N o.3 took a
few months to assess Contracto r's ex tension
of time claim no.2. As for dela y event no.1,
the Con tractor had failed to demonstrate that
the wea ther condition on a particular day
had been excep tiona lly inclem ent, that work
was disrup ted. The Co ntrac to r's claim then
wa s rejected.
Fo r the increa se in ea rthwor k
quantities and revised piling de sign, the 5.0.
co ncur red w ith the p rod uctiv ity rate
a na lysis a do pted b y th e Co n trac tor in
arriving a t an exten s ion o f 20 months to the
co mple tion dat e. Taking into co ns ideration
co nc u rren t delays, the 5.0. awarded 16
months of extension o f time for even t no.2 as
claimed by th e Contra c tor . Fro m the
info rmatio n s ubmi tted, the Co ntractor d id
not dem on st rate how man y days of delay
25
Journal of Design aud tim Buill Enulronment
ha d been caused b y th e additional p ipe
la ying work u n d c r d elay even t no.4 as
inst ru c ted by the 5.0. A t the time the case
study was written, the Contractor has yet to
demonstra te the delay days caused by the
5.0.'s in struct ion. The 5.0. req uested the
Contractor to resubmit his claim once he was
ab le to de monstra te the d elay when the
ex tern al work wa s completed.
T h e Contra ctor submitted an
extension of time claim no.3 for de lay event
no .4 for a total of 8 m onths. However, the
5.0. deci ded that th ere was also culpable
delay by th e Co ntractor and gran ted an
extension of time of on ly 6 mon ths. The
Contractor claimed that cash flow problem
due to the unfo reseen economic downturn
a n d non-payme n t by th e Em p loyer on
agreed varia tion works had con trib u ted to
the delay in the project. The Co nt ractor
arg ued that these problems had ca used
inabi lity to ex pe d ite works by e mploy ing
appropriate resources such as labour , plant
or eq u ip me nt. The risk of ma nagi ng these
reso urces gene rally rest s up on the
Co ntrac to r and d el a y caused b y poor
manage men t s h o u ld be borne by the
Contractor. Th erefore, the ground for thi s
claim is unfounded. In any event there are
o ther remedies that the Cont ractor may
pu rsu e for breach ofcontrac t by the Emp loye r
w he re the Employer failed to pay for work
done .
Conclusions
The case s tudy approach se emed to have
worked in exploring the hist or y of events
and issues that are pertinen t in discussing
the obligations and responsibiliti es of
parties invol ved and the sequence o f events
for a particular incident of claim o n an
extension of time. The case studies indicated
tha t contractors often fail to comply w ith the
con tract's p rocedural req uiremen t to submi t
timely notifica tion of delay. Notices of del ay
are subm itted late, of ten, just before the d ate
of completion when the employer is abou t to
im p o s e li qu id a te d damages on to th e
contractor. Contractors seldom keep proper
26
records on de lay issues . This is one major
aspec t o f co n trac t ma nagem en t th at
co ntractors need to urg en tly address .
Without proper record and documentation
that is v irtually no th ing that can used as
supporting evidence. As a resu lt, they face
diffi cult y in de monst ra ting the cause and
effect of the de layi ng even t and this grave ly
affect theirentitlemen t for ex tension of time.
Th ere is a mbig uity and a lack of records or
supporting facts as to when events occurred,
how and w ho caused the delay and th e
impact they have on the project's comple tion
date. Often, a contractor's ex tension of time
cla im s co nsi st only of the s ta te me n t of
occurrence of delaying ev ents and their
causes, and that these are s ubmitted as one
globa l delay claim .111ey also failed to infor m
contract administrator on the changes on
works programme and their impact on the
project's crit ical path. Meanwh ile, upda ted
works programmes are usually sub m itte d
on ly when the co n tra ctors wi sh to cla im for
ex tension of time. Even then, some of the
works p rogrammes d o not in d ic at e
important facts such as the p roject 's cri tical
path to enable contract administrator to easy
assessment of time impac t on the project.
Th e main problem e ncou n tered by
contract adm inistrators is that contractors
tend to "infla te" the ir cla ims even th ou gh
the y are una bl e to provi de p roper
justification for them , As a result, contract
administrators need to spend a great deal of
time to evaluate and establish reasonable
and accept abl e length of time to be gran ted
to th e co n trac tor. It is observed that the re is
of ten de lay by the con trac t ad ministra tors
in processing and evaluating contractors'
d ela y claims . S uc h d ela ys may ha v e
prevented contractors from taking necessary
mitigating action (ifany) to reduce the impa ct
of project delay. Co n tract administra tors
appear to have a nega tive and defe nsive
attitude towards contractor's de lay claims
and seld om provide any rationale for their
decisions on how and wh y a certain number
of days ex tension of time ha ve been gran ted
to the contractors.
 Application and Assessment of Extension OfTime Claim
Suggestio ns on m in im ising problems
e nc o un te re d in the app li ca tio n and
prepa ra tion of ex te nsion of tim e claim by
contractor and analysis and justification of
claims entitlement by contract administra tor,
in clud e : adherence to th e a g re ed p ro cedure
fo r th e p repara tio n and e va lua tion of d el ay
claims, implementation of a se t o f agreed
s tandard ised delay an alysis m et h odolo gy ,
and p ropel' documenta tion of p roject reco rds
to be used lat er for the purposes of cla im s
a nd overcoming dispu tes by both pa r ties.
Pro m p tness o f proce ss ing a nd fin ali s in g
cla im s an d docum en ta tio ns o f proj ect
records fur clai ms pur poses are utmos t
im por tant issu es in relat io n to cl aims .
Perha ps , an in cre ase d se nse o f
pro fessi o nali s m in co ns truc tio n co uld
overcome some of the problems rel at ed to
claims and extens ion of time.
It is reco m m ended th at o ther resea rch
m et h o d olo g ie s s u c h as q u e s ti o nna i r e
s urvey s and tr ia ng ula tion m e thod s be used
in future research to provide more insights
and p oss ib le remedies into th e problems
e nco un te re d in th e app li ca ti on and
aSSeSSITICnt of extension of time claims.
Refere nce s
Ad rian, ] . J. (1988). Cons truction Claims - A
Quautitative Approach, Pren tice-Hall , United
States.
Bra mble, B. B. a nd Ca llaha n, M. T. (1992).
COllS tYll ctioll DelnyClnim, 2".1 Ed ition, John Wiley
& Sons Iu c., N ew York.
C IOB 200 0 S tan d ard Fo rm o f Contrac t.
Pu bli sh e d by Co ns truc tio n Indu s try
Deve lopment Board, Malaysia.
Collier, K . (2001). Cons truc tion COll fmc/s, 3"
Edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc. United States.
Eggleston, B. (1 997). Liquid ated Dama ges and
Extensions of Time in Construction Con tracts,
2"" Ed ition, Blackwell Science Ltd ., London.
Far idi , A,S. and El-Sayeg h, S,M. (2005).
AsseSSlII t'Ilt of tile Cnusrs of Delays ill tti c llAE
COlJs trllctioll l n d ust rs}, Proce ed ings of 2005
Inte rnation al Co nfe rence of Cons truction &
Real Estate Manage ment, Decemb er 12lh - 131h ,
2005, Penang, Malaysia, Vol.!, 146-150,
IEM 1989 Standard Form of Contract. Published
by The Institution of Engineers, Malays ia.
Liau Soon Cons tructio n Pte Ltd v G u nn Qian
Reall y Pte Ltd (2000) 1 Singapo re Law Rep orts
495.
Londo n Borough of Merton v. Stanley Hugh
Leach Ltd (1985).32 Build ing Law Reports 51.
Ng , S.T., Sk it mor e, M., Deng , M.Z .M. and
Nadee m, A. (2004). lmprouing existing' delay
analysis technique» for tlu: ('s falJlislulJe nt of delay
liabilitie«, Construction Inno vation, 2004, VolA,
Issue 1, 3-17.
J. ). (1976). Co ns tr u c tio n De lay -
O' Brien ,
Responsibilities, Risks and Litigation . Cahners
Books International, Inc. Boston.
PA M 1998 Standar d Fo rm o f Con trac t.
Published by Malaysian Institute of Archi tects,
Malaysia.
Pa tla n, M. Q. (1987). How / 0 LIse Qllalita/ive
Methods ill Euaiuetion,Sage Publications, London.
Pick avance, K. (2000). Delay and Disruption ill
Const ructi on Contmc ts, LLP Refe re nce
Publish ing, London .
Powell-Smith y . and Sims, J. (1989). Bl/ildillg
Contract Claims. BSP Profes si onal Boo ks,
London.
PWD 203 A Stand a rd Fo rm of Co n t rac t.
Publi sh ed by Public Work s De par tme n t,
Malaysia.
Robinson, N. M., Lavers A. P., Tan, G. K. H. and
Chan, R. (1996). Construction Law ill Singapore
and Malaysia, 2.....1 Edition. Butte rw or th Asia,
Singapo re.
Thamesa Designs Sdn. Bhd. v. Kuchin g Hotel s
Sdn. Bhd . (1993).3 Malayan Law ]ournaI 25.
Turner, D. F. and Turne r, A. (1999). Building.
Contract Clai ms and Disp utes, 2 nJ Ed it io n,
Addison Wes ley Longma n Limited, England.
White, B. (2000). Dlssertation Skills, Co ntinuum,
Lond on and New York.
Williams, T. (2003). Assessing extellsion of lime
delays 0 11 ",ajor projects. In ter national Journal of
Project Managemen t, Vol.! 5, No.3, 181-186,
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Stl/dy Resea rch - Design
and MetllO'/' Sage Publica tions, London .
27
icumot of Dt's(~ 11 nlld thn Built E,wirolllll{'lIf

Table 1: G ro u n ds for Extensio n of T im e for Case Stu dy No.1

No. D escription of Eve n l Pursuant to Clause Number of

(PAM 1998) D ays Cl aimed

1. Late start o f p roject. 23.7 (v) 30

2. Lat e ins truc tion on u nse t p iles. 23.7 (vi) 37
3. Late instruction on sho rt piles 23.7 (vi) & 23.7 (v) 41 + 50
&Variation instruction on sho rt piles
4. Relocation of m ock 23.7 (v). (vi), (x) 48
5. CUnsui tabi lity o f d esign ed p iles. 23.7 (v), (v i), (x) 74

T abl e 2: Ch ro n ology of Even ts for Ca se Study No.2

No.1 Dat e Details

1. 24'h O ct 2001 No tifica tion fro m Engineer tha t it is unlikely that the
extended completion da te no . 1 of 4'" November 2001 can be
achieved.

2. 25'" Oct 2001 Contractor served notice of de lay and claim for ex tension
o f time of 60 da ys.

3. 9'" Nov 2001 Contractor served no tice and cla im for 10 days ex tens ion
oftime.

4. 5'" Ap ril 2002 Co n tractor app lied for ex tensio n of tim e and req ue sting
co mp le tion d ate to be ex tended to 5'" April 2002.

5. 22"· April 2002 Eng ineer gra n ted extension of time of 60 days and comp la te
d a te was extended to 3'" Janu a ry 2002 as per Co n trac tor's
ap p licat ion d a ted 25'" Oc tobe r 2001.

6. 23'" Ap ril 2002 Engineer issu ed Cert ifica te of No n-Co mp le tion on 4 th Jan
2002.

7. 12'h May 2002 Co n trac tor reitera ted that th e Engineer had yet to evalua te
their ap p lica tion for extension o f tim e s ub m itted on
5'h April 2002.

8. 31" Ju ly 2002 Contractor req uested for s ta tus upda te o f the ex tension of
time applications dated 5'" Ap ril 2002 a nd their le tter da ted
12" May 2002.

9. 1" Aug us t 2002 Eng inee r confirmed that ass ess men t of ex tens ion of tirne is
in progress.

10. 5'" August 2002 Engineer issued Cer tifica te of Pr ac tical Comp letion.

28
 Application auf!Ass{'sS11Il'II l of Extension of Time Claim

Table 3: Grou nds for Exten si on of Time for Case Study No. 2

No. Description of Even t Pursuant to Number of Days

Clause (IEM 1989) Claim ed

1. Objection o f works by third parties. 43 (g) 34

2. Refusal by lo t owne r. 43 (e) 25
3. Uncertainty of diame ter of force main. 43 (j) 8
4. Discove ry of exis ting pipeline . 43 (e) 7
5. Poor soil co nd ition. 43 (e) 18
6. Variation work. 43 (e) 10

Table 4: Grounds for Extens ion of Time fo r Case Study No .3

No. Descri ption of Eve n t Pursuant to N umb er of

Clau se(I'WD 203A) Months Clai me d

1. Exception all y inclemen t wea ther. 43 (b) 4.5

2. Increase in ea rthw ork quan tities. 43 (e) 12
3. Revised pil in g d esign. 43(e) 8
4. Add itio na l wa ter pipe laying. 43 (e) Disru p tion due
5. Fina nci al cash flow p roblem. 43 (j) to resou rce
re- allocation
Affect overa ll
wo rk progress

Table 5 : No tice of Delay Claus e

Key Issu es PAM 1998 PWD203A !EM 1989

When to Clause 23.1 Clause 43 Clause 43

serve a Ifand toncu it becomes
Noti ce of reasollabtyapparmt
Delay? that the progress of the
Works is beillg or likely
to bedelaued beyolld
the Datefor Cotnpletiou
the Contractorshall
forthwith of tue
OCC llrrellce of SIfCIteveJlt
1I0tify the Architect ill
writillg idelllifyi llg the
releoan t events C(lusil1g
the delay,.. .
Llpoll it becomillg Upon it becomillg
rt>flsOIwbly apparel'l rrosollably apparent tlmt
thn! the progress of the the progress of the Works
Works is delayed, the is ddayed, tlu:
COlltmctor shall COlltmetal' shallf orthwith
forthwith give written givewritten noticeof
noticeof file causes of the callses of delay to
delayto the 5.0... file Engineer."

29