Critiria for a EOT Notices

The notice for the events causing delay in completion of the project may be given at any time during the contractual period but complete EOT with full supporting documents can be submitted prior to end of Contract Period and it is accepted by all the parties.

Richard

I totally agree with your contention but mostly the Contractors submit complete EOT prior to the end of the Completion Period to encompass all the delayed events occured in the Contract Period.

Regards

Hi Shahzad & Richard,

Thank you for your advises.
There seems to be a little diferent opinion so may I seek clarification from the both of you:

(1) Let narrow down the subject to say:
(a) Fidic
(b) JCT
(c) NEC

(2) Legally or according to the rules, in the type of Contract (a to c) what are the requirements for each type?

(3) If Contractors submit complete EoT prior to Completion Period tp encompass all the dely events, can that be entertained.

(4) "As soonas it become apparent" - how do we interpret this?

Thanks

In each Contract notices are issued upon the occurrence of relevant events whereafter fully substantiation EOT is submitted with baseline schedule showing the impact of all delays prior to end of completion period.

Yes, these Extensions of time applications are entertained which are submitted prior to the Completion Period under Fidic and JCT Contracts subject to fulfilling the contractual requirements in respect of its substantiation.

The word ‘ become apparent’ relates to as issuance of Engineer and Employer’s instruction

Hi Shahzad,

Thanks

"Fully Substantiation EoT is submitted"

Query:
(1) Does the Contractor have to quote the relevant clause?
(2) Does the Contractor have to submit the Notice within the specified period of notice? (maybe say 14 or 17 days)
(3) The specified period (14 or 17 days)start counting from when?
(4) Are you saying that an event happed say during groundwork on week 4, the EoT is allowed to be submitted on week 78 as long as it before the Completiondate say week 80?
(5) Do the contractor have to demonstrate what is the cause and what had been affected and how long the effect was?
(6) With regards to (5), does this had to be submitted with the Notice or can wait until week 78 to submit?
(7) What would constitute a fully and valid "Substantiation"
(8)‘ become apparent’ - so this not when the contractor realise that had been delay & EoT is required but "issuance of Engineer and Employer’s instruction"
so In Fidic form of contract, if the Engineer issued the instruction say week 4, the contractor realised a need for EoT on week 25 and put in a Notice on week 26 and finally inform the Engineer on week 78 that they require 5 weeks EoT. Is this okay or what is the part that is not complied with the contract?

Hope you can clarify. I been reading archived letters from contractor for EoT Notice and they all seems just a blanket cover but not specific. I am confuse as to the exact requirements and proper procedure.

Thanks

For items 1, 2,4, answer is yes.
For item 3, the specified period starts from the date of issuance of instruction from Engineer or Client
For item 5, yes, the Contractor should submit cause and effect of delays causing the impact on completion
For item 6, Better to submit at week 78 with full back up.
For item 7, this substantiation comprises of Clause reference, Engineer/Client’s instruction, Baseline Schedule with impact of delays, correspondence etc.
Your item 8 seems to be fine and can be justified.

All,

Interesting conversation and as already established, it comes down to the wording of the clauses and the contractual obligations arising from them.

Not going to get into specifics but although I would always advocate giving a formal notice as you’ve all discussed, an updated programme showing a new completion date may be sufficient. The intent of any notice is to make the Employer aware of something and if it can be said that the Contractor has made the Employer sufficiently and clearly aware, this MAY BE sufficient notice whatever its form. I say sufficiently and clearly aware as a half hearted attempt smothered in a smokescreen won’t do.

Another common mistake is that the notice has to be proceeded by the Contractor giving lots of records and justification - some, eg ICE, but not all standard forms (especially NOT the NEC) actually only require a notice in order to facilitate the keeping of the correct records by the CA - it is then up to the CA to work out the EoT, not the Contractor. Most often the Contractor will do his own calculations and give this to the CA but it may not actually be contractually required.

You have to read EoT clauses as a whole to discover what the real intention is or if the giving of a notice is a condition precedent to getting an EoT. Common law jurisdictions have in very general terms, decided that the failure to give notice won’t bar a claim but Civil law jursidictions are normally the total opposite - no notice, no claim.