You are here:

Construction Law/Prolongation Costs time of consideration


Dear Sir

In SCL protocol and regarding  "PROLONGATION COST IN EOT CLAIMS" and in paragraph 1.11.1 ".... Once it is established that compensation for prolongation is due, the evaluation of the sum due is made by reference to the period when the effect of the Employer Risk Event was felt, not by reference to the extended period at the end of the contract".  My questions are:
1- shall this be done irrespective the period of EOT is?? i.e. if the delay by the Employer was 2 weeks due to Employer failing to hand over a part of projects plot  to the Contractor while the consequence due to the impact on the critical path was one month.According to SCL; what will be considered are the two weeks of delay along with related costs, right?
2- Very Important: what if the Employer has notified the Contractor by a reasonable time about the upcoming delay in handing over the plot accordingly the Contractor wouldn't provide any resources until he was notified again that the plot is ready. in this case No prolongation costs shall be compensated to the Contractor because he didn't incur additional costs within the actual delay?

Please clarify thoroughly since this subject is critical, complicated and urgent for me.  

Employer Contract Administrator

Dear Khaled,

Thank you for your question.

Prolongation cost for a certain particular reason, is to be calculated in relation to that specific reason - this is what the SCL protocol says.

There may be various reasons for granting EoTs and there may be various EoTs granted to the Contractor at different moments during the Contract implementation. Hence, at the end, there may be an "extended period" resulting as a sum of all granted EoTs.

Each such EoT shall be analysed as self-standing, not in conjunction/ correlation with other EoTs.


1: If a specific Employer's Risk results in granting an EoT of one month, because so it was impacted the Critical Path, respectively Contractor must stay one month longer on Site, associated prolongation costs shall be calculated for that whole month.

2: It might be the case that Contractor could delay mobilisation of certain resources and hence mitigate certain costs, but most likely, it is next to impossible that Contractor incurred no cost at all.

The least, the simple fact that Contractor must stay longer on a Site and it would incur overheads.

As well, for the period when he had to postpone mobilisation of certain resources, Contractor still had to:

- pay wages to its employees which they plan to bring on Site and could not be taken somewhere else, and

- amortisation and depreciation costs for equipment, which similarly, could not be taken somewhere else.

But all these, need to be discussed based on evidences and specific Contract provisions, regretfully I can only provide you some suggestions on how to approach the matter.

I hope however this answer will help.

If any other queries, please do come back with further details and will gladly answer.

Construction Law

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts




Questions related to Civil Engineering Contracts, using FIDIC or other Conditions of Contract, concerning Procurement procedures and documents (pre-qualification, tendering and contracting) and Services/ Works Contracts implementation matters including Determinations, Payments, Time Extensions, VOs, Claims/Disputes. Additionally, questions related to dealing with International Financing Institutions. Can also answer questions in Romanian. Can not answer improperly formulated questions.


Over 20 years of experience in the field of design, works supervision, construction, management of aid funds and technical assistance for various types of contracts implementation, including severe conflictual contractual situations leading to Claims and disputes. Claims/ Contract management, Disputes adjudication, Arbitration.

Member of Romanian Professional Association of Roads and Bridges; Listed on President's List of Adjudicators of Romanian Association of Consulting Engineers Former member of the Disputes Resolution Board Foundation (DRBF) of United States – nominee on DRBF President’s Disputes Board Members List and of DRBF Chapter for Eastern Europe Former member of Polish Association of Consulting Engineers (SIDiR) – nominee on SIDiR President’s Disputes Board Members National List Member of “” volunteers pool Member of the "Constructions Disputes Resolution Services” International Panel of Construction ADR Specialists" of United States

- Graduate in 1994 the Construction Institute - Graduate of several FIDIC,Procurement and other courses - Graduate of first Disputes Board Members Mentoring Scheme ( - FIDIC Accredited Adjudicator

Past/Present Clients
- Several State organisations/Ministries , such as Ministry of Transport, National Admistration of Roads, Ministry of Regional Development (former Ministry of European Integration), Public Works and Housing, Central Contracting and Financing Unit in Romania and also in Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia - Numerous Western based private consultancy companies - full CV and other relevant information available at

©2016 All rights reserved.