The net critical delay of 18 calendar days resolves into 12 days of excusable, compensable delay (employer-risk) and 6 days of non-excusable delay (contractor-risk). A 12-day concurrency exists between the employer and contractor events; because those days overlap, the contractor's cost recovery for the compensable window is reduced or extinguished for the concurrent period, while the extension of time remains due. Recommended EOT award: 12 days, with the residual 6 days remaining at the contractor's risk.
Employer risk concurrent 12d Impact: +12 calendar days on the critical path.
The Level 3 pre-pour inspection (Activity A1733) was held pending the Employer's response to RFI-214 concerning a rebar detail. Under JCT D&B 2016 clause 2.26, a failure to provide information in due time is a Relevant Event, giving rise to an extension of time, and a Relevant Matter under clause 4.21, giving rise to loss and expense. This is an excusable, compensable delay. The window is measured from the date the pour became due to the date the RFI response was received and the pour released.Contractor risk concurrent 12d Impact: +18 calendar days gross on the critical path.
The erection of columns at Grid G, Levels 4–6 (Activity A1422) was re-sequenced after fabricated steel was re-issued, extending the critical path by 18 days. This is a Contractor-risk, non-excusable delay. For 12 of these days the effect ran concurrently with the tail of the employer-driven pre-pour hold (W1); the remaining 6 days sit as pure contractor-culpable delay beyond the concurrency.Contractor risk Impact: +6 days apparent, but a modelling correction — nil separate award.
The MEP rough-in (Activity A1801) showed a 6-day movement, but this arose from closing previously open-ended successor logic rather than a new physical delay: the earlier revision understated the true position. It is a quality correction, not an independent delay event, and carries no separate entitlement. It is recorded here for completeness and to pre-empt its double-counting.| Window | Event | Risk | Gross | Concurrent | Net award |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | Pre-pour hold — RFI-214 (A1733) | Employer | 12d | 12d | 12d EOT + L&E* |
| W2 | Grid G steel erection rework (A1422) | Contractor | 18d | 12d | 6d culpable |
| W3 | MEP logic correction (A1801) | Contractor | 6d | — | nil (modelling) |
*Loss & expense for the concurrent period is contested — see concurrency assessment. Net programme delay to completion: 18 days (12 compensable + 6 contractor-culpable).
Windows W1 and W2 are concurrent for 12 calendar days — the employer-driven pre-pour hold and the contractor's Grid G steel rework overlap in time on the critical path. Concurrency is the decisive question for this claim, because it separates the extension of time (which protects the contractor from liquidated damages) from the loss and expense (which recovers the contractor's prolongation cost).
On a dominant-cause / first-in-time analysis, the contractor's steel rework begins the critical slip; the employer's RFI-214 hold then runs concurrently. On this reading the contractor is entitled to an extension of time of 12 days for the employer Relevant Event — a contractor is generally entitled to time for an employer risk event even where its own concurrent delay exists — but its cost recovery for the concurrent 12 days is reduced or extinguished, because during that period it would in any event have been delayed by its own steel rework.
If the parties or the contract instead favour an apportioned approach (as in City Inn v Uniglas), the 12 concurrent days would be split between the parties on a fair and reasonable basis, changing both the time and the money. This is a legal determination on the contract and the facts; this brief quantifies the delay and sets out the competing bases so the parties can resolve entitlement on a common factual footing.
Primary method — Windows (contemporaneous period) analysis. The R10-to-R12 period is divided into delay windows, each isolating an independent event on the critical path. The impact of each event is measured as its contemporaneous effect on the driving path within its window, which is the method preferred by AACE 29R-03 where sufficient contemporaneous schedule data exists — as it does here (four dated revisions).
Corroboration — Time Impact Analysis & As-Planned vs As-Built. Each window's impact is cross-checked by inserting a modelled delay fragnet into the accepted schedule (TIA), and the result is reconciled against the as-built record (As-Planned vs As-Built). Where the three methods agree, as they do here, the entitlement is robust to the choice of method.
Draft work product. This brief is generated from the underlying Comparison analysis as a first draft for the delay practitioner. The assignment of each window to Employer / Contractor / concurrent, and the final entitlement determination, remain matters for the reviewing party to confirm against the contract and the contemporaneous records before submission.
Run a Baseline Comparison or Trend Analysis, tag each delay window's cause, and ScheduleInsight drafts the entitlement narrative across three forensic methods — a first draft you finish and sign off, not a blank page.