The short notice preserves the right. The fully detailed claim is where the right is turned into days. Under FIDIC 1999 it is due 42 days from awareness; under 2017, 84 days, with its own time-bar on the contractual basis. Whichever edition, the document the Engineer receives should be built the same way.
The structure Engineers expect
| Section | What it contains | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Introduction | Project, parties, the event in one paragraph, the relief sought | Opening with grievance instead of facts |
| 2. Contractual basis | The EOT grounds relied on, cited to the sub-clause in your contract as amended, and the notice history | Citing the standard form when the Particular Conditions changed it |
| 3. Statement of facts | Dated chronology, each fact tied to a record | Facts with no reference to a document |
| 4. Cause and effect | How each event affected specific activities and why those activities drove completion | Asserting delay without linking it to the critical path |
| 5. Time impact | The days claimed, with the analysis method named and the programme references | A global number with no method |
| 6. Cost | Either a reservation of the right to claim cost, or the prolongation cost section with heads and line items | Mixing time and money arguments |
| 7. Conclusion | The extension requested, stated plainly | Restating the whole claim |
| 8. Annexures | Numbered records matching every citation in the text | Annexures the narrative never refers to |
Section 2: cite the contract you have
The contractual basis section decides whether the Engineer has to engage with the rest. Cite the EOT ground under Sub-Clause 8.4 or its amended equivalent, the notice under Sub-Clause 20.1 or 20.2 with the date it was given, and any other sub-clause the event engages, such as late drawings or site access. Quote the wording from your contract as amended, not from a FIDIC textbook, because the Particular Conditions may have changed it and the Engineer will check.
Sections 3 and 4: chronology, then causation
Keep the statement of facts strictly chronological and strictly referenced. Every date gets a record: the RFI, the transmittal, the diary page, the photograph, the meeting minute. Then, in a separate section, explain causation: which activities the event held, why those activities were on the driving path to completion, and how long the hold lasted. Separating facts from argument makes the document easier to check and harder to dismiss.
Section 5: name the method
State which delay analysis method you used and why it fits the timing of the claim. The SCL Protocol describes the recognised methods; a prospective claim during the works will usually lean on a time impact analysis against the contemporaneous programme update, while a retrospective claim after the event may use a windows or as-planned versus as-built approach. This is expert territory: name the method, present the programme references, and let your delay analyst defend the choice.
Three habits that change how it is read
- Write the notice history early. If the notice was late, say so and explain the position rather than hoping nobody checks. The Engineer will check.
- Cite evidence inline. A reference like (E-041) after each factual sentence lets the reader verify without hunting through annexures.
- Keep money separate. Time and cost are argued on different grounds. Winning time does not automatically win money, and mixing them weakens both.
Checklist before submission
- Every clause citation matches the contract as amended, not the standard form.
- Every date has an annexure reference; every annexure is referenced in the text.
- The notice history is stated honestly, including any late notices.
- The delay analysis method is named and consistent with when the claim is being made.
- The document carries a draft-for-review banner until the expert signs it off.
The DraftMyEOT claim wizard assembles all eight sections from your register and evidence locker, cites every record inline, and flags gaps instead of filling them.
Start a 48-hour draft →Sources
This article is general information about how these contract mechanisms typically work. It is not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for review of your specific contract by a qualified professional.