DIGEST | ISSUE 26The basics of clearly drafting thenarrative of an event that hasoccurred can often be lost whendrafting an EOT claim.6. Effect-Cause – in contrast, other methods of delayanalysis will begin with identifying critical delay (theeffect) and then look to establish the reason for thedelay (the cause). This method is generally adoptedwhere the works have been completed or when theeffect of the event has concluded.It is important for the delay analysis narrative to alignwith the narrative and the chronology of the eventwhich may be detailed in another section of the claim.Often, the narrative of the event and the delay analysisnarrative is drafted by separate individuals whichmay lead to misalignment and conflicting informationbetween the two sections.Consideration should be given to the fact that therecipient of a claim may not be an expert in the fieldof delay analysis or overly familiar with delay analysis.Therefore, the narrative should be drafted in a mannerthat a person who is not technically versed in delayanalysis methodology can understand it, including adetailed step-by-step explanation within the ‘claim’.CONCLUSIONTo conclude, the following takeaway points can enhancethe possibility of a successful outcome of an EOT claim: When drafting the narrative of the event, use adetailed and factual chronology, substantiatedthrough project records. When establishing entitlement to an extension oftime, use the correct provisions of the contract. The delay analysis methodology chosen and thelogic surrounding the same should be explained aspart of the narrative. The delay analysis section of the claim should beclearly drafted in a manner that a non-technicalperson may understand. The delay analysis narrative should align with thenarrative explaining the event.33
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
