Construction Delay, Claims and EOT: Why the Evidence Chronology Matters
Delay and EOT work is evidence-intensive. A schedule impact on its own rarely tells the complete story. Teams need to preserve what happened, when it happened, who knew, what was communicated, what action was taken and how the event affected the work.
Build the chronology from contemporaneous records
Useful records can include approved schedules, updates, correspondence, RFIs, drawings, submittals, site instructions, procurement records, daily reports, photographs, meeting minutes and formal notices. The stronger the chronology, the easier it is to distinguish fact from retrospective assumption.
Connect the event to the programme
A delay event should be linked to the affected activities, work fronts and milestones using the schedule logic and status that existed at the relevant time. The analysis should identify whether the event affected a driving path, consumed float or interacted with other causes.
Separate evidence from entitlement
Project-control systems can organize chronology, schedule effects and supporting records, but contractual entitlement depends on the contract, notices, causation, concurrency rules, applicable law and professional judgment. Automated outputs should not be presented as legal conclusions.
Preserve decisions and mitigation
Mitigation instructions, recovery actions, approvals and rejected alternatives can become important later. A governed project record should retain who decided what and when, not only the final claim narrative.
Move from guidance to governed workflow.
ORQIV publishes practical project-control guidance publicly while keeping customer data, proprietary algorithms and private implementation details inside the governed product boundary. Review methodology is documented in the Editorial Policy.