Invalid submission of extension of time claims in the South African construction industry

Most construction projects are delayed in the construction industry due to internal and/or external influences. Proving delay is not a simple task but rather a time-consuming process, as projects consist of numerous activities and a substantial amount of detail, and they interface with the many stakeholders. Several different methods can be used to prove a delay; however, these are academic and are mainly for simple projects. Proving a delay is often difficult for the contractor, who is consistently dealing with multiple project constraints. Therefore, to be effective with an extension of time claim, the contractor must establish causation and liability, and assist in demonstrating the extent of time-related damages experienced as a direct result of the delay events relied upon. The process of recording the delays is dynamic and requires solid knowledge of contract clauses, the ability to distinguish between different types of delays and the capability to identify what constitutes valid evidence. Therefore, a need arises to establish a framework that would assist contractors by standardising their submission. This would contribute to expediting the evaluation and approval process, thus limiting the negative impacts associated with prolonged delay claims. The research obtains a “lived” view from contractors who have participated with EOT claims, therefore, utilising the qualitative research method. The choice of data collection method was semi-structured one-on one face to face interviews. In deriving the findings of the research, the coding scheme techniques were used throughout the research process to manage both the secondary and primary data. The main factors which cause major problems in EOT claims are contractual knowledge, lack of supporting information, contractual compliance, employer inference and the different philosophies of contracts, which often leads to confusion and misinterpretation. There is a lack of awareness and knowledge of the analysis techniques and strategies which could assist in preparing EOT claims, even though there is a substantial amount of literature available. The concept that the industry needs a standardised submission process was welcomed by the participants; the existence of a common strategy would certainly resolve many problems in the submission process, including reducing the number of disputes. There was a consensus among all participants that there is no standard approach to submitting EOT claims in the South African construction industry and exploring a common approach was an idea that was viewed as reasonable and maybe offered a practical solution to address the submission challenges. There were several delimitations to this study. First, the sample only included individuals within the Eastern Cape region. Since the sample size was relatively small, the researcher was cautious when interpreting and generalising the results. Secondly, the targeted population for this research was selected using the purposive sampling method, as opposed to a random sampling, which means that the results of the study cannot be generally applied to a larger population. Lastly, the research was a qualitative study which relied on the interpretations of the researcher based on his understanding of the data collected