Most contested delay determinations are not lost before a tribunal. They are lost months earlier, on the engineer's desk, in the way the contractor's claim was assessed, or in how thinly it was assessed at all.

The pressure is structural. A contractor's extension of time claim arrives four hundred pages thick on a Thursday, and the conditions of contract give the engineer a finite window to determine it. Inside that window sit allegations of disruption, concurrent delay, and prolongation cost, each demanding forensic schedule analysis, quantum assessment, and a reading of the contract against the governing law. The in-house team is built for supervision, not litigation. Site staff run inspections and respond to RFIs; office staff convene meetings and review submittals. None of that is a Time Impact Analysis. Every one of these realities carries exposure, and every one of them sits in the determination, waiting to hold up or waiting to be picked apart.

What separates a determination that closes a dispute from one that opens it is rarely the size of the claim. It is the rigor of the response. An engineer who tested each allegation against the contract, classified it on the evidence, analyzed the effect on the completion date rather than a single activity, and quantified delay at the actual cost incurred when the critical delay occurred is in a fundamentally different position from one who certified quickly to clear the desk. A weak determination does not stay neutral. It becomes the employer's own evidence against the employer, and if the engineer under-certifies, the contractor simply escalates.

Delay claims amplify this because they are adversarial by design. The contractor builds the claim on a record they intend to rely on later. The determination has to be built on the same evidentiary footing. Entitlement, causation, quantum. Each established in its own right. Entitlement first, because no day of extension should be considered until the contract and the law confirm the contractor is owed it, with each allegation admitted, left unproven for the contractor to substantiate, or denied with a reasoned rival explanation. Then causation, shown against the completion date as a whole and tested hardest where contractor-caused and employer-caused events overlap. Then cost, grounded in actual expenditure at the time rather than a daily or weekly average smeared across the contract.

The contractual position usually offers the engineer more than a hurried review reveals. The conditions of contract, the governing law, the analysis methodology the contractor chose and where it falls short. Whether the determination holds cleanly or invites challenge is a question of reasoning and evidence, not instinct.

For engineers carrying the obligation to determine on a fixed contractual clock, the window to set the right tone is narrow and closes quickly. A thorough appraisal at the right moment, anchored in the contract and supported by forensic analysis, is usually the difference between a matter that ends at the determination and one that ends at a tribunal.

If a contractor's EOT claim has just landed on your desk, or you are already deep into a contested submission, we are happy to look at where the determination stands and what a defensible position looks like.

Thank you for reading the CMA Newsletter.