What is FC International?

FC International offers programme assurance, delay analysis and expert support with guidance for New Zealand project teams across 20 pages.

Extension of Time Claims

A claim can fail even when the delay was real.

EOT submissions and responses built on the programme record.

Request a Confidential Discussion Explore Our Services

The problem

When this service is needed

Extension of time claims succeed or fail on the record, not on how real the delay felt on site. A submission that does not connect the delay event to the critical path, that misses the contractual notice and claim requirements, or that rests on narrative rather than contemporaneous programme evidence will not hold. FC International prepares and impartially reviews extension of time claims under New Zealand construction contracts, including NZS 3910:2013, NZS 3915, NZS 3916 and FIDIC forms, for contractors, head contractors, owners and legal teams. Owners and head contractors face the mirror problem: claims that are overstated or unsupported, and no impartial technical basis on which to respond.

Typical situations

When a delay event occurs and entitlement must be established or notified; when a claim is being prepared and the programme analysis behind it has to be built; when a claim has been received and the owner or head contractor needs an impartial assessment of what the programme and records support; and when a submission has been rejected, reduced or disputed and needs strengthening, rebuttal or review before adjudication.

The lens

What our EOT analysis examines

We build the position from the contract and the programme record outward, testing each element the claim depends on rather than accepting the narrative in the submission.

The contract and its time provisions

The EOT clause, notice and claim requirements, the defined delay events, time bars and the basis on which time is awarded, read against what was actually notified and when.

The causative events and their timing

What happened, when it happened, what instruction or record evidences it, and whether it was an employer-risk event, a neutral event or contractor risk.

Effect on the critical path

Which activities were driving completion when each event occurred, and whether the event moved completion or was absorbed by available float.

Contemporaneous records and the as-built

Site diaries, progress reporting, correspondence, meeting minutes and the as-built sequence, tested for consistency and for what they can actually establish.

Concurrency, float and apportionment

Periods where more than one cause operated on the critical path, who carries the risk of each, and how the contract and the applicable guidance treat the overlap.

Quantum of time, and the extension that follows

The period the evidence supports, stated as a defensible number, together with the prolongation and disruption consequences it gives rise to.

The output

What you receive from an EOT engagement

A claim or a response that is traceable to the contract and the programme record, and can be defended if it is challenged.

A structured EOT submission, or a response to one

A claim or assessment set out in the sequence the contract requires: entitlement, notice, causation, critical-path effect, period claimed and supporting evidence.

Programme-based demonstration of critical-path effect

Window, time impact or as-planned versus as-built analysis, as the record allows, showing the effect of each event on completion rather than the effect on individual activities.

Delay analysis to the recognised guidance

Analysis undertaken in accordance with the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol and AACE International recommended practice, so the method itself is not the weak point.

A defensible period, honestly stated

Where the evidence supports less than is claimed, we say so and identify what would be needed to support the balance, rather than present a number that will not survive scrutiny.

Identification of evidence and programme gaps

The specific records, notices or programme updates that are missing, and what they would need to show for the claim or the response to be stronger.

A position built for the next stage

Prepared to evidentiary standards, so that if the claim proceeds to adjudication under the Construction Contracts Act 2002, arbitration or court, the analysis does not have to be rebuilt.

The approach

Our impartial method

We build EOT positions from the programme record outward, not from a desired outcome inward. Whether instructed by the claiming or the responding party, the same method is applied and the same standard of evidence is demanded, so the analysis is one a tribunal or an opposing expert can follow and test. Our analyses follow recognised international guidance, including the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol and AACE International recommended practice. The work is led personally by Fouad El Chikhani, a member of the New Zealand Society of Construction Law since 2006 and a Certified International Negotiator (CIN)™, with Technical Director Hani Al Olabi, from our Auckland office, on claims throughout New Zealand. We do not provide legal advice and we do not act as legal advisers; we establish and evidence the technical basis of the claim, and where a matter has legal dimensions we work alongside your legal team so that our findings can be used in their process.

Who this is for

Suitable client types

Contractors and delivery teams

Preparation of an EOT submission that ties each delaying event to the critical path, supporting your internal planner and commercial team rather than replacing their knowledge of the job.

Project owners and developers

An impartial assessment of claims received, so that a position is taken on what the programme and records support rather than on the strength of the submission alone.

Head contractors assessing subcontractor claims

Impartial analysis of a subcontractor claim, where entitlement, notice and flow-down obligations must be determined against the subcontract and the master programme.

Legal and dispute teams

Technical claim analysis prepared to evidentiary standards, delivered as a report your team can rely on in negotiation, adjudication or formal proceedings.

Consultants and design teams

Analysis where delay attributed to design development, consenting, approvals or late information release is in question, including the dates information was actually issued.

Questions

Frequently asked

Do you prepare claims as well as assess them?

Both. We prepare extension of time submissions and we impartially assess claims for owners and head contractors. Our methodology is the same regardless of who instructs us, and we will tell a claiming party where the evidence does not support the period sought.

Which contracts and forms of contract do you work with?

Most commonly NZS 3910:2013, along with NZS 3915, NZS 3916, FIDIC forms and bespoke construction contracts. The first step is always to read the time, notice and claim provisions of the contract that actually governs the works, because entitlement and process are defined there.

How long does an extension of time claim take to prepare?

It depends on the number of delay events, the quality of the programme and records, and whether the claim is being prepared or reviewed. A single-event claim on a well-documented project is a matter of weeks, while a multi-event claim across a long programme takes considerably longer. We scope it after reviewing the records rather than quoting a figure in advance.

What if the contemporaneous record is poor?

We work with the record available, clearly stating the limitations and the inferences that can and cannot reasonably be drawn. Where records can be reconstructed from other contemporaneous sources, we say so and set out how, and we tell you where a period cannot be evidenced.

Does preparing or assessing a claim involve legal advice?

No. We provide impartial technical analysis of the programme and delivery record. We do not provide legal advice and we do not act as legal advisers. Where a matter has legal dimensions, we work alongside your legal team so that our findings can be used in their processes.

What if notice was given late, or not at all?

We establish the technical effect of the delay and set out precisely what the notice record shows. We do not advise on whether relief remains available under the contract; that is a question for your legal team, and we will provide the technical analysis they need to address it.

Can the analysis be used in adjudication?

Yes. Where a claim proceeds to adjudication under the Construction Contracts Act 2002, arbitration or the High Court, our analysis is prepared to evidentiary standards so it can be relied on in that forum, subject to the evidence available and the requirements of the particular process.

What do you need from us to begin?

Usually the contract and its notice provisions, the baseline programme, the progress updates, the notice and correspondence record, and the claim as it currently stands. Where records are incomplete we identify the gaps first, so that the scope and the likely outcome are understood before work starts.

Confidential enquiry

Tell us about your matter

Share as much or as little as you are comfortable with at this stage. We will assess whether we can help and explain next steps.