There is a big difference between claiming loss of productivity and showing any loss was caused by the client's actions. I've just finished 18 months working on this for a subcontractor. The approach used by Zoltan Palffy
is sound, but the starting point is if the contractor is not achieving the planned rate of production to assume it is because the subcontractor is being innefficient. Then......
1. Identify the disruptions caused by the actions or ommissions of the client (head EPC contractor)
2. See if the disruptions coincide with identified delays (eg, the time needed to relocate or re-work a changed design) - treat these issues as normal EOTs for assessing the cost fo the delay even if the delay is not 'critical'
3. For the remaiing time periods see if there is a reasonable correlation between the claimed disruption to the work and the alledged loss of productivity.
Some key questions are:
Did the subcontractor have the planned resources in the correct work area?
Were the resources adequately skilled / correct type?
Did the subcontractor cause any issues or problems requireing time to correct?
Establishing the above needs good contemporaneous records and even then it is difficult to separate the causes of delay so in a sensible contractual relationship some compromise is needed - it is much cheaper than a full blown dispute for everyone.
For more on this see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-TPI-080.php