DELAY CLAIMS IN U.K.

CONTRACTS

By Stephen Scote

ABSTRACT: Contract conditions in both the United Kingdom and the United States are sufficiently similar to
allow common generic delay claim scenarios to be recognized, but there are important differences in the extent
of legal precedent for assessing such claims. In the United States recognized procedures have been developed
to allow critical path method (CPM) to be adopted in this area, while in the United Kingdom the situation is
much less clear. It is true that U.K. professionals will generally recognize that CPM will be useful in dealing
with delay claims, but there is little evidence that a standard approach has been accepted. A survey was conducted
by the writer to discover how U.K. claims for delay were being prepared (by the contractors) and how they
were being assessed (by the supervisors). Because of the complexity of this area, the study was approached in
a number of ways. This paper presents conclusions concerning attitudes towards such claims and information
about the mechanisms that are being adopted to prepare and evaluate them.

INTRODUCTION
Claims are an inevitable feature of major projects that will
have to be dealt with on the majority of contracts let. The
project designer's accepted inability to fully provide for all
eventualities means that changes will be made to the contract
as it proceeds, and, where these involve additional work, ad-
justed payments will be necessary. Disagreements on the level
of these payments will be a typical source of claims. Along
with changes to the payments made, these variations may also
result in delays to the works. Where these delays have a
knock-on effect on the project as a whole, they may give rise
to extra costs. These result from the contractor's prolonged
presence on site, generating additional overhead costs for the
extended period. There are, of course, factors other than varied
work that may delay the project, an4 it is also generally rec-
ognized that delays may be attributed to the employer/owner,
to the contractor, or to neither party.
The contract will normally have a predetermined time in
which it must be substantially completed and available for use.
In the absence of delays, failure to substantially complete
within this time frame will often mean that liquidated damages
will be deducted from the contractor. These will be at the level
defined in the contract and will be payable for the period by
which the whole project is delayed. Such damages should aim
to compensate the employer/owner for any lost profits or lost
benefits stemming from the inability to make use of the project
at the agreed date. Clearly, where delays have occurred during
the project, which can be attributed to the employer/owner and
have delayed the contractor, these should be taken into account
before the damages are deducted. The opportunities available
in many contract conditions to recognize a contractor's right
to have the time for completion of the contract extended reflect
this acceptance of the more likely state of affairs.
By no means will all changes to a contract delay the project.
Some will involve changes in detail that merely affect the na-
ture of the work to be done without increasing its difficulty,
requirement for resources, or duration. Other changes will ac-
tually reduce the work to be carried out. There will, however,
typically be changes that do delay, increase the duration of, or
force a change in sequence in the activities making up the
contractor's program. The impact of such amendments on total
project time cannot be easily predicted at the time the events
'Lect., Dept. of Civ. Engrg.. Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU,
England. " "involve deductiimOfliqUidateaoaillages from the contractor.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 1998. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on September 27, 1996. This paper is part of the
]our1Ul1 of Constructiion Engineering and Ma1Ulgement. Vol. 123, No.
3, September, 1997. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/97/0003-0238-0244/
$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No. 12997.
238/ JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / SEPTEMBER 1997
occur and consideration must also be given to delays for which
the employer/owner is not responsible. The aim of the survey
presently described was to attempt to understand how U.K.
professionals actually deal with such situations.
BACKGROUND
Delays to parts of the contractor's program, which may not
necessarily cause delays in the project as a whole, are-mosC
helpfully categorized as follows:
1. Those for which the employer/owner or supervisor is re-
sponsible (E);
2. Those for which the contractor is responsible (C); and
3. Those for which neither party to the contract is respon-
sible (N)
American texts usually refer to these delays as: (1) compen-
sable; (2) nonexcusable; and (3) excusable, and some of the
main reasons for delay encountered under these subdivisions
are, respect!vely:
1. Changes to the contract documents, failure to provide
land or information within a reasonable time, and failure
to approve the contractor's method of working expedi-
tiously;
2. Inadequate supervision and technical support, late agree-
ments with subcontractors/suppliers, and insufficient la-
bour/plant; and
3. Strikes, riots, and exceptional adverse weather.
There appears to be a general consensus as to the rights to
additional time and payment for such delays (where war-
ranted) in all contract forms encountered by the writer. The
rights are as follows:
• For a delay of type E: extension of time and extended
overhead costs
• For a delay of type C: no compensation
• For a delay of type N: extension of time without extended
overhead costs
Of course, type Edelays may als?.lead. to other costs re-
sulting from disruption and Ineffi'Ciency ana'type'c'a:erays-may
It should also be noted that in the United States, contracts with
a "no damage for delay" clause effectively convert the cate-
gory E delay to the same as the category N delay.
A realistic delay claim Scenario on a complex project may
well contain a number of delays of each of these three main
types, affecting different activities in the program at different
times. It is also quite likely that a request for an extension of
the contract time for completion may be made part way
through the contract. Where the contractor has already been
denied an extension of this type, he or she may accelerate
certain activities in order to complete the project on time. The
supervisor must consider the contractor's claim in all its com-
plexity, and, depending on the type of claim, make a decision
as to whether an extension of the contract time should be given
or whether the contractor should have to accelerate and should
be recompensed for any additional costs. These are particularl~
difficult situations tocom1?rehend and to assess.
.'f.: 'revIewofthe'iherature-' oTthfs'areaShows that, in the
United States, an understanding has developed of a generalized
approach to dealing with such problems, as reported by Wick-
wire and Smith (1974) and Wickwire et al. (1989), but there
appears to be no comparable approach detailed in U.K. texts. ~
This American approach involves the preparation of full "as-
built" records of exactly when. the various activities in the
project took place and when delays were effective. From this.
information, a judgement is made on the right to extensions
of time with costs by pulling out the delays for which the I
employer was responsible and assessing how long the con- i
tractor would have taken to complete the job in the absence I
of these delays. It is generally recognized that this may not be !
a simple process, and that it is not likely to ever be mecha- !
nized, as it requires judgement and common sense.
One of the main sets of contract conditions used in the i
United Kingdom for civil engineering construction, which
adopts a traditional arrangement of the parties and a bill of
quantities, is the Institution of Civil Engineers "Conditions of
Contract," 6th edition (ICE 1991). In this document, the prin-
cipal clause relating to extensions of time says that the super-
visor must consider whether, " ... the delay suffered fairly en-
titles the Contractor to an extension of time for the substantial
completion of the WorkS~~~-:'-'-Exactly'how thIs"Isto bedone;'
however, is left to the'supervisor to decide, and although texts
relating to the U.K. experience suggest that the application of
the critical path method will make for a more just solution,
they only given very simplistic examples.
The U.K. supervisor thus has little supporting material to
provide guidance in deliberating on these problems and no
substantive legal precedent. In the absence of such precedent
or recognized procedures, it is suggested that the views of
other professionals working in this field may be the most use-
ful guide that can be provided. If general areas of common
agreement between the two main parties on site can be rec-
ognized and accepted, this may help to simplify the delibera-
tions on some of these complicated claims situations that have
been found to 'occur so frequently.
MAIN SURVEY
The survey was carried out on organizations operating as
supervisors and contractors on major construction projects in
the United Kingdom. Because of the complexity of the area
being studied it was not considered feasible to use a mail-shot
approach. Instead, interviews were held based on question-
naires. The questionnaires were piloted by carrying out inter-
views prior to the main survey, and were edited to take account
of the findings from these interviews. Two questionnaires were
used: one for the supervisors and one for the contractors.
The response rate for the main survey was 45%, and it gen-
erated a total of 22 interviews. Of these, 11 were conducted
with organizations fulfilling the supervisor's role and 11 with
contractors. Some of the companies did not respond at all,
even after a reminder was sent out, and one firm replied that
it would not become involved as it was, " ... policy not to
discuss commercial matters outside our own organization."
Despite this viewpoint, which may have been the basis for a
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / SEPTEMBER 1997/239
number 'of nonresponses, those who did take part did so en-
thusiastically. The interviews typically took 2 hours each to
complete and were conducted in the offices and site huts of
the respondents.
The findings from these interviews clearly relate most di-
rectly to the U.K. construction industry but, because of the
similarities in this area found between contract conditions used
there and in other countries, it is believed that they will have
a wider relevance.
MAIN FINDINGS
General Principles
As a first and rather crude attempt to determine attitudes,
four statements were presented to the interviewees. They were
asked to say whether they agreed or disagreed with the state-
I ments, and were invited to comment as they wished. The state-
ments were selected, in part, to check whether certain princi-
I ples discussed in the literature were generally accepted by the
profession, and also to test out attitudes on matters that have
not been so widely considered. The aim here, as in other parts
of this section, was not only to record and analyze decisions,
but also to try to ascertain how such decisions were made. The
results and comments made on each statement will now be
,j considered in tum. To assist this process, the statements and
results have been tabulated in Table 1.
The first 9.!!estion suggests that a claim for extended over-
head costs shouict-not succeeduni'essthe-iTi.ile-forcom.pletion'
Jilnc~!y t9~~=e~~~e4icf-dp-posriiji'vIewpointsliavebeenfound
il}. th~,Y :~: Jit.e!..!l:t~~{l.~i!h.!~g~~LtQ .!h.Ls.,.s.!.~:!:t~IJ:l~!}!.. Support
for the view is recorded by Powell-Smith and Stephenson
(1989) although it is rejected by Abrahamson (1979). The in-
tervi~'Y~.~~~2.~~.~.P~!~t~_<?!~ ..~E1.~~~~~£!2.~?,_~ere _~uivo­
C:o~Jj~UE~iE .. ~i~_a.~t::~.I}1~n! with this statement. Only two 'COlU:-
ments were made: (1)8. supervisor stated ihat a contractor may
be due an extension of time even if he or she can still finish
on time; and (2) a contractor stated that the time for comple-
tion affects only liquidated damages. Whatever the views of
writers and commentators on this issue, the industry appears
to be quite clear as to its opinion.
TABI,.E 1. Assessment of Claims: General Principles
Decision Supervisor Contractor
(1) (2) (3)
(a) There is no point in making a claim for extended overhead costs
unless the time for completion is likely to be exceeded.
E" I 1! I ,!
(b) If the contract program shows completion in 18 months, and the
contractor actually completes in 18 months, no extended overhead
_ _ _ _ _ _ _--=costs can ever be justified.
g_~_sa_:~_e_e
o
11
___ 1 : I o
(c) If the supervisor awards an extension of time without costs for a
delay attributed to exceptional adverse weather, this prevents the
contractor from justifying an extension of time with recovery
~ of Old ro," f~ m, .. m'rriOd !
(d) Providing the supervisor never actually instructs the contractor to
accelerate, no acceleration claim can be justified.
g[;" I ! I !
 In the second statement, if a contractor's program shows
completion in 18 months and the contract is actually com-
pleted in that time, the statement says that n~ .extend~d ove~­
head costs can ever be justified. The SupposItion behmd thIS
statement is that having anticipated paying overheads for the
18-month period, even if the contractor could have completed
it in 16 months and was delayed 2 months by the employer,
no loss was actually suffered. Overheads havf; only been paid
for the time they were expected to be paid. All the contractor
responses disagreed with this view. This might have been ex-
pected, but the majority of supervisor responses were against
it too. Some of the comments made show that some respon-
dents would have been considering, not extended overhead
costs but additional overhead costs for the 18-month period
occa1ioned by any additional work instructed by the supervi-
sor. There still, however, seems to be a general distrust of the
logic supporting this statement. It should of course be recog-
nized that the first and second statements are very similar and
relate generally to the "right to finish early" issue.
The suggestion contamed m the thIrd statement resulted
from a discussion with a supervisor during a visit to one of
the sites on which the preparatory work for the questionnaires
was being conducted. He related that in the past he had been
involved in a contract on which the supervisor had taken the
initiative to award an extension of time without costs as a
result of exceptionally adverse weather. This had been done
specifically to prevent the contractor from claiming an exten-
sion oftime with costs for some cause that was the employer's
JesQonsibility. Irrespective ofthe rights or wrongs ~f suc? .ac:'
tion, this situation raises the general issue of alternatIve cntIcal
paths and parallel delays, and for this reason was felt to be
worthy of inclusion. Among the supervisors, 60% disagreed
and made comments suggesting that this would be somehow
underhand; and 40% agreed, some of these believing that the
contractor would find another way to recover these costs. The
contractors were much more strongly opposed to this state-
ment, with 82% disagreeing and only 18% agreeing. The com-
ments made, however, did not particularly attempt to disprove
the statement, but were general accounts of their views on
dealing with weather in claims situations. Although the ques-
tion is a rather complex one, it was surprising that none of the
comments anticipated the possibility that a further extension
of time beyond the first might be awarded, this time with costs.
Also, the chance that another parallel path through the net-
work, much delayed by the employer, might supersede the
impact of the path on which the weather delay occurred was
not considered. It is possible that delays to the contract are not
seen or perhaps not considered in this way?
The final question concerns acceleration claims and states
that, providing the supervisor never actually instructs the con-
tractor to accelerate, no acceleration claim can be justified. The
responses from both contractors and supervisors were identi-
cal, with 64% of responses disagreeing with the statement and
27% agreeing. The comments showed a recognition by the
majority of the possibility of what is sometimes known as
"constructive acceleration." That is, if the supervisor fails to
award a properly deserved extension of time during the period
of the works, the contractor speeds up to complete within the
original time for completion and the supervisor later decides
that the extension should actually be awarded. In such a case,
the contractor has no need for the late extension but may have
suffered additional costs as a result of having to complete work
at a faster rate than was reasonable., Such costs should be re-
coverable by the contractor for having to accelerate, even
Jh9JJ~nQ.Ji~ifu:_ order ...to acc~lerat~ ..~_~s_given. This is a
generally recognized scenario and perhaps the reason for a
number or the respondents not identifying it results from the
fact that so few acceleration claims are made.
240/ JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / SEPTEMBER 1997
Specific Cases
As an alternative means of shedding light on the way in
which professionals in the industry consider delay claims, it
was decided to try to describe fully some particular outcomes
to contracts and to ask the respondents to recommend solu-
tions. This was the approach adopted in both questions in this
section, although different methods were used. In the first
question, the whole scenario was described in words, while'
for the second question four diagrams were drawn to chronicle
the outcomes to four contracts.
The interviewee in the first question was asked to make a
decision on extension of time matters part way through a con-
tract On the basis of the following statement:
"Six months into the contract, it is clear that the employer
has delayed a part of the works in such a way that the whole
of the contract will be delayed by two months. The time
for completion is 24 months and the contractor's original
program showed completion in 20 months. What should the
contractor doT'
Seventy-eight percent of the supervisors said that the con-
tractor should request an extension of time; the rest that a
claim for a delay with costs should be made. Of the contractor
responses, 60% said that the contractor should claim for an
extension of time; 40% that a claim should be made for delay,
not for an extension of time.
It is clear from the figures that at the point of consideration,
no extension of time will be needed. Yet, if the contractor was
to allow the program to slip, or further delays occurred, the
situation would change. An extension of time might then be
necessary to defray the deduction of liquidated damages. This
fact was clearly understood by the respondents.
In assessing the effects of a delay partway through a con-
tract, the supervisor must attempt to predict how the contract
will proceed in the future. For some delays, where the whole
site was brought to a standstill as a result of the employer's
actions, the effect on the completion of the whole project is
undeniable. However, if the delay was not so wide-ranging
and yet at the time it appeared that it would necessarily delay
the whole project, a later assessment might prove that another
path through the network had become critical. This second
path might then control the completion of the project and
might only contain within it delays for which the contractor
was responsible. In such a situation, awarding an extension of
time, rather than simply recognizing a delay for which the
employer is responsible and that could lead to an extension of
time, might lose the employer the right to deduct liquidated
damages. Recognition of a fundamental delay to the project
rather than awarding an extension of time, however, was not
favoured by most supervisors. It appears that such delays tend
to be closely linked to ideas of extensions of time.
In the second question, the intention was to illustrate a few
simple yet interesting scenarios that might have to be dealt
with in claims situations. Time-scaled CPM diagrams were
used for this purpose and although the simplest cases were
chosen, it was still found necessary to clarify a number of
points. For this reason, a checklist was developed to help ex-
plain the diagrams before they were shown to the interviewee.
The points on the checklist were as follows:
1. For each case, two diagrams are shown: one showing the
contractor's original program (planned); one showing the
actual "as-built" record of work (Actual).
2. The diagrams use a time-scaled, activity-on-arrow format
in which a number of symbols are used. A rectangle with
rounded ends or a circle represents an event. A thick
arrow indicates a critical activity, a thin arrow an activity,
 and a dotted line float. A rectangle with a C over it means I, Time for completion .1
a delay that is the contractor's responsibility, an E one Weeks
that is the employer's responsibility, and an N one that
is the responsibility of neither party.
o 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. It is assumed throughout that the existence of one delay
has not affected the duration or timing of subsequent
delays. For instance, if the construction site is not avail- a
able at the start of the works, any contractor delay might
be a result of holding back preparations. Such effects are
assumed not to have occurred.
4. It is to be assumed that no acceleration has taken place.
5. In each case, the interviewee's views are sought on the
contractor's rights to an extension of time, the recovery (a)
of overhead costs, and the employer's right to deduct
liquidated damages. Time for completion
Weeks
The actual diagrams used during the interviews were A3 size 3 456
and these are reproduced at a much smaller scale together with
the accompanying description and a summary of the results
obtained as Figs. 1-4.
In Fig. 1, the time for completion is four weeks, the con- a
tractor's program shows the job finishing in four weeks, and

I, Time for completion

Weeks
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 (b)
I
Number of
Supervisors Contractors
weeks
a liqUidated 0 10 10
damages 1 1 1
2 0 0

Extension of 0 0 0
time 1 4 2
2 7 9
(a)
Recovery of 0 0 0
overheads 1 8 5
\. Time for completion 2 3 6
Weeks
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
FIG. 2. Scenario 2 in Which Whole Project Consists of One
Activity-a; Work Cannot Start until End of Second Week When
Site Becomes Available-Contractor is Not Ready to Start until
a E a End of First Week, and Project Is Completed Two Weeks Late: (a)
Planned; (b) Actual

it does actually finish in four weeks. This is true, even though

the employer has delayed the contract for a week. There is
(b) clearly no need for any liquidated damages to be deducted and
all respondents agreed on this. Although no extension of time -1
Number of is required to defray deduction of damages, almost a half of
Supervisors Contractors
weeks the s~rvisors and 36% of the'contractors felt that one should
Liquidated 0 11 11 ~~~.i'Y.~(f~d.Conceriilng··wfi"etfier·overlieadcosts should be
damages 1 0 0 paid to the contractor, there was a majority of both supervisors
2 0 0
and contractors who favored paying overhead costs for one
Extension of 0 6 7 week.
time 1 5. 4
)
,1._ This case has parallels with both the second statement in
~--.-_.

2 0 0 the General Principles section and with the first question in

Recovery of 0 3 2
this section. In the second statement, even though the con-
overheads 1 8 9 tractor had allowed for the amount of overheads eventually_
2 0
. 0 paid, the consensus seemed to be that overheads should be
!~irnb~u~s~4fo~...ally'i~JE~jE~_~.~Rl..~~iJiad-Clefa.~dtlie·whore_
(c) contract. This result is repeated here. In the first question in
FIG. 1. Scenario 1 in Which Whole Project Consists of One this sectIon, most 'respondents felt that an extension of time
ActiVity-a; at End of Two Weeks, Work Is Suspended for One should be awarded rather than simply a recognition of a delay
Week (E-Type Delay), but Contractor Still Completes on Time: for which the employer was responsible. In somewhat similar
(a) Planned; (b) Actual circumstances, but in an instance where there is obviously no
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / SEPTEMBER 1997/241
 Time for completion _I Time for completion
Weeks Weeks
o 1 234 5 6 o 1 2
a
3 4 5 6
a

b b

(a) (a)
Time for completion Time for completion -I
Weeks Weeks
o 2 3 4 5 6 o 234
a
5 6
I I a 1 I

C b N b
~ .............. ~ ..............
rI ~
(b) (b)
Number of Number of
SupelVisors Contractors Su pervlsors Contractors
weeks weeks
.liquidated 0 11 11 Liquidated 0 0 1
damages 1 0 0 damages 1 8 8
2 0 0 2 3 2

Extension of 0 0 0 Extension of 0 2 3
time 1 1 1 time 1 9 8
2 10 10 2 0 0

Recovery of 0 0 0 Recbveryof 0 9 11
overheads 1 3 1 overheads 1 2 0
2 8 10 2 0 0

(c)
FIG. 3. Scenario 3 in Which Whole Project Consists of Two
Activities-a and b, Which Can Proceed Simultaneously; De-
lays due to Employer and Contractor Result in Project Being
Completed Two Weeks Late: (a) Planned; (b) Actual
(c)
FIG. 4. Scenario 4 in Which Whole Project Consists of Two
Activities-a and b; Delays due to Contractor and to Neither
Party Result in Project Being Completed Two Weeks Late: (a)
Planned; (b) Actual

need for an extension of time, a number of interviewees still
wanted one to be awarded. There appears to be a linkage in
many of the respondent's minds between such delays and ex-
tensions of time. This ignores any possibility that overheads
might be recovered.without such an extension.
The remaining diagrams show a variety of ways in which
overlapping delays might affect a project's outcome. The first
of these, Fig. 2, contains two delays type E and C both af-
fecting a single activity a. Almost all of those interviewed
replied that no liquidated damages should be deducted, with a
majority of both supervisors and contractors recommending a
two-week extension of time. The position on the recovery of
overheads, however, was not so clear cut. Most supervisors
felt that overhead costs should be paid for one week only,
while 55% of contractors felt that two weeks overhead costs
should be payable. The supervisor's view in this case is iden-
tical to the solution that would pertain to adopting legal rem-
edies for concurrent delays in the United States, as reported
by Kraiem and Diekmann (1987). That is, that a two-week
extension of time should be awarded, but with overhead costs
payable for only one of those weeks.
Fig. 3 is similar to Fig. 2, involving two delays of type E
and C, although this time they are affecting different activities.
242/ JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / SEPTEMBER 1997
The delays are, in fact, on parallel paths. The response was
unanimous that no liquidated damages should be deducted,
and nearly so on the belief that a two-weeks extension of time
should be awarded. It was less conclusive concerning the
amount of overheads that should be recovered, but most su-
pervisors and contractors still thought that these should be paid
for two weeks. This is a marked difference in view to the view
with regard to recovery of overheads in scenario 2, which may
be seen as a very similar situation to this one.
If an adjusted schedule was to be constructed for this situ-
ation, in line with the Wickwire and Smith (1974) approach,
and the Wickwire et al. (1989) approach, removing the em-
ployer-responsible delays would show that the contractor
would not have been able to complete the project on time. The
contract would be one week beyond the time for completion
and thus the contractor should, on this basis, have one week
of liquidated damages deducted. The other week should be
covered by an extension of time for which overhead costs
should be paid. Both supervisors and contractors disagreed
strongly with this view and seemed to simply identify the crit-
ical path and make their decisions based on the delays on that
path alone.
The last diagram, Fig. 4, also has parallel delays but this
time they are of types C and N. Again a majority view can be
defined for both supervisors and contractors alike. That is that
there should be an extension of time for one week, liquidated
damages deducted for one week and no recovery of overheads
at all. An alternative view would be that it was the contractor's
own actions that delayed the contract by two weeks, causing
it to finish two weeks late, and the contractor should be totally
responsible for this delay. By this argument, two weeks liq-
uidated damages should be deducted. The respondents were,
however, more generous than this. They clearly felt that the
contractor should benefit from the fact that an "act of God"
type of delay would have prevented the contract being com-
pleted on time, had he or she not been responsible for a delay.
Depending on how the concurrent delays were dealt with, the
U.S. response on such an outcome would be either that rec-
ommended by the majority of respondents here, or the alter-
native view expressed. It should, of course, be noted that the
delay type N is not on a critical path and in some circum-
stances may not be considered a concurrent delay.
Claims Procedure
Under this heading are collected the responses to questions
that aimed to identify particular procedures adopted by both
contractors and supervisors in preparing and assessing delay
claims. For this, three basic questions were adopted. The first
of these was addressed to the supervisors only, the second to
both contractors and supervisors, and the third solely to con-
tractors. The first question goes straight to the point:
"What procedure do you adopt for assessing the validity
of a claim for an extension of time on a complex project?"
The responses received were varied, ranging from: "Ana-
lyze evidence, compare with our records, and make a decision
based on those facts," to "Require demonstration that delay
has occurred, secondly that delay was critical to completion
date; gets very complicated-anything but straightforward."
There was a general recognition of a need to check facts as
proposed by the contractor with the supervisor's records, but
other suggested actions were: (1) justify that the delays could
not have been expected; (2) look at the claim as though you
were making it; (3) try to establish another one or two ways
of evaluating the cost of the claim to get a feel for where the
settlement figure should lie-then negotiate with the contrac-
tor; (4) look at how the individual claim is presented (as it is
difficult to specify a general procedure); (5) use program, as-
sess links between activities, and take account of float; and (6)
try to accept contractor's approach-if not, use own methods.
In this belief that this first question might not elicit re-
sponses that directly addressed the actual mechanism used to
affirm or assess the impact of individual delays, a second more
specific question was included:
"How do you show that/decide whether a delay to a par-
ticular activity has actually contributed towards delaying
the whole project.1"
The responses of the supervisors will 'be dealt with first,
followed by those of the contractors. Sixty-four percent of the
supervisors interviewed mentioned the critical path or critical
activities in their replies, some of them recognizing that it may
not always be easy to identify this path. Two respondents used
the word "shunting," referring to subsequent activities in the
project being moved along by the effect of the delay in ques-
tion. There was certainly a general belief that where this shunt-
ing occurred on the critical path, an extension of time might
well be justified. Other comments made were: (1) need to
check for float on path affected; (2) possibility of stalling to
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / SEPTEMBER 1997/243
see if path on which delay occurred is actually critical; (3)
CPM program appear when such claims are being made; (4)
program should be used as a basis, but then monitor actual
activities and only agree payment if real delay occurs; (5) crit-
icality is judged from understanding the sequence of activities;
and (6) contractor typically identifies critical path-you check
it.
The importance of critical paths and the shunting effect of
particular delays on activities on such a path were also rec-
ognized by the contractors who answered this question. There
was, however, another important element reported by 36% of
the contractors that was not mentioned by any of the super-
visors. This was the concept of "plugging" delays into the
contract program to see their effect on completiontime. Some
said that they would use a software package for this. This is
particularly interesting as it begins to appear that the produc-
tion of an "as-built" program is being described. However,
on further examination, this was seen not to be the case. The
contractors who used this approach admitted that they would
use the activity durations from the original program for this
purpose, and made no attempt to record actual durations of
the activities. In fact, it was mentioned by one contractor that
he would extend actual delay durations used in this exercise
to those that would have occurred had he not increased re-
sources to improve the situation. The contractors explained
that their aim in using this approach was to demonstrate their
"entitlement" to the employer. Having plugged in the delays
to the initial contract program in this way, they would expect
to show a completion time beyond what they actually needed.
The fact that they had managed to complete before this time,
they would argue, was because they had been particularly ex-
peditious in carrying out the contract. This would then be fol-
lowed with an expectation that the employer would pay them
their costs, possibly with an element of profit.
In some circumstances, a large number of site instructions
might cause considerable disruption to a contractor's perfor-
mance. This might happen in such a way that it would be
difficult to isolate and deal with each delay individually. A
question was posed to contractors that described this scenario
as follows:
"How do you formulate claims when the disruption to pro-
gress is due to the effects of a large number of site instruc-
tions and it is not possible to separate individual causes of
delay?"
Forty percent of the responses said that this .would be dealt
with as a combination of individual causes of delay, effectively
saying that they would be able to isolate individual delay ef-
fects. The others recommended amassing information on the
value of the instructions together with information on total
costs. By showing the monies spent compared with the antic-
ipated spending profile, these contractors aimed to show that
the increased expenditure was due to the disruptive effect of
the instructions.
CONCLUSIONS
The material will be considered under two main themes: (1)
the attitudes to particular claims situations; and (2) the mech-
anisms that are adopted in preparing and assessing those
claims. In terms of the first theme, the principal conclusions
that can be drawn from the study are as follows:
1. There appears to be good agreement between both su-
pervisors and contractors that a claim for extended over-
head costs should be able to succeed despite the fact that
the time for completion has not been exceeded. In this
situation, however, a number of those interviewed would
award an extension of time.
 2. A strong link seems to exist in the minds of many who
deal with delay claims between awarding an extension
of time and accepting a claim for extended overhead
costs.
3. In the claims situations involving· concurrent delays, the
approach adopted by the supervisors was generally very
fair to the contractor. No attempt seemed to have been
made by either party to remove delays for which the
contractor was not responsible and then identify how
well the contractor could have proceeded in the absence
of those delays.
In terms of the second theme, the basic approach adopted
by most supervisors in assessing the claims was as follows:
1. Check the facts of the contractor's submission.
2. Identify or verify the critical path.
3. Check whether the delays on that path have had a shunt-
ing effect on the activities.
4. If some of the delays on the critical path would cause
an extension of time, then an extension of time may well
be justified.
Similar views were expressed by contractors concerning the
ways in which they would try to prove their rights to an ex-
tension of time. A few of them sought to demonstrate entitle-
ment, as previously described. It seems clear that, apart from
244 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT / SEPTEMBER 1997
the entitlement method, the interviewees tended to deal with
these problems on the basis of the critical path alone. Other
paths through the network were not likely to be considered.
As has already been reported, the legal basis for dealing
with delay claims in the United Kingdom and the United
States is quite different. It is clear, however, that in the United
Kingdom most claims will be dealt with at site level. This
study was intentionally aimed at those professionals who made
the claims and those who assess them on site. In making in-
formation available about how some of these matters are being
handled by others, it is hoped that some benefit can be derived.
When little legal precedent exists, the procedures adopted by
other professionals may be a valuable guide.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Abrahamson, M.W. (1979). "Engineering law and the I.C.E." Contracts,
4th Ed., Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London, England.
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). (1991). Conditions of contract. 6th
Ed., Thomas Telford, London, England.
Kraiem, Z. M., and Diekmann, J. E. (1987). "Concurrent delays in con-
struction projects." J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 113(4),
591-602.
Powell-Smith, V., and Stephenson, D. (1989). Civil engineering claims.
BSP Professional Books, London, England.
Wickwire, J. M., and Smith, R. F. (1974). "The use of critical path
method techniques in contract claims." Public Contract Law J., 7(1),
1-45.
Wickwire, J. M., Hurlbut, S. B., and Lerman, L. J. (1989). "The use of
critical path method techniques in contract claims: issues and devel-
opments 1974 to 1988." Public Contract Law J., 18(2), 338-391.