Grid connection delay and prolongation claims

Background

The project had been affected by late civil works, delayed earthing and grid connection, and an unplanned substation outage during testing. The parties disagreed about the effect of competing events and the resulting entitlement to time and money.

Experience on a related project had shown the extent of particulars the Engineer expected. The client wanted a negotiated outcome supported by a clear explanation of the delay periods, the costs affected and the contractual position.

Our approach

We worked with a specialist delay analyst who assessed the planned and actual sequence through four time windows. The retrospective analysis used contemporaneous communications and as-built records alongside the programmes to explain how the critical path changed. This was important where programme updates alone did not provide a reliable account of the delay.

The analysis distinguished the civil-work and grid-connection delays from the equipment-delivery period attributable to the contractor. It also assessed the later testing outage, when work could not progress. We structured the prolongation calculations around the assessed events and periods, excluding the contractor's delay from the costs claimed.

The cost review covered both consortium members and separate UK and overseas accounting systems. We reconciled the use of sterling and euro cost information and distinguished site-specific expenditure from resources shared with a related project. The allocation of shared management and ancillary costs was explained so the basis of the project valuation could be followed.

For personnel, we organised allocations and costs by role and month, derived daily averages per month and applied the relevant delay days. We reviewed accommodation, travel, site facilities, plant and equipment against the accounting extracts, separating prolongation expenditure from other project costs.

Commissioning required particular attention. Changing energisation dates affected specialist attendance, equipment hire and repeated mobilisation. We reviewed subcontractor invoices by event and period, connecting those costs to the activities that could not proceed. The report and supporting valuations explained the calculation method for each head of claim.

Alongside the claim, we prepared commercial advice on recovery risks, notice compliance and potential delay damages. Best, likely and worst-case scenarios gave the client a basis for assessing negotiation options and the further work that would be required before pursuing adjudication.

Outcome

The client received a detailed claim report and supporting valuations that connected the assessed delay periods to the resources and costs affected. The separate advice helped the client weigh the presented claim against the evidence and its potential delay damages exposure when deciding how to negotiate.

The client subsequently confirmed that the key commercial terms of a negotiated settlement had been agreed, avoiding escalation to adjudication or another contractual dispute resolution process.