Hi all,

I’m new to these forums, but not to the website or the planning profession. I’ve had a good read through here today and downloaded the SCL Delay Protocol document. In there it states (point 9) "Where contractor delay to completion occurs or has effect concurrently with employer delay to completion, the contractors concurrent delay should not reduce any EOT due".

I disagree with this statement completely... say for example a contractor is 4 months behind programme when they discover that an activity can’t take place as planned due to design / co-ordination issues. An instruction is issued by the employer to make the relevant changes due to co-ordination / design, which then impacts the end date by an additional 3 weeks (hypothetically).

Now, bearing in mind that if the contractor were on time in the first place, this issue would have been picked up 4 months earlier and probably had no impact to the project comopletion date, but according to the SCL Delay Protocol document, the contractor would be entitled to claim for 4 months and 3 weeks EOT ? That doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.