Substantiating a logistics fit out delay claim for negotiation

We supported a specialist mechanical and electrical subcontractor with an extension of time and loss and expense claim on a major logistics development. The project covered around 80,000 square metres, with the later fit out dependent on equipment installation, access and work by other trades. We brought the contract, programme and cost evidence into a completed claim for approximately ten weeks of additional time and around £200,000, then supported the client’s commercial team in preparing for negotiations.

Background

The later phase of the development combined building services installation with the fit out of specialist storage and automated handling equipment. Its start and completion dates were linked to the earlier construction phase, but the contractual documents and programme history needed to be read together to establish the basis of those dates.

Revised design requirements, changing access dates and additional instructed work affected the installation sequence. The subcontractor had repeatedly adapted its programme to keep work moving. Its commercial case needed to explain the delay remaining after those efforts and connect that delay to the contractual basis for time and money.

Our approach

We examined the subcontract, pre-contract records, correspondence and programme revisions to establish the intended sequence and the relationship between the phases. This distinguished the contractual position from later forecasts and provided the starting point for assessing the effects of change.

The completed report organised the claim around three events: delayed access to a specialist storage area, an instructed mezzanine services package, and subsequent delay to the structural work needed to complete that package. Each account linked the instruction or access constraint to the relevant subcontract provisions and supporting records.

We traced the storage-area access dates through successive programmes, progress reports, meeting records and delay notices. The analysis showed when that area became critical to completion and documented around twelve weeks of mitigation through overlapping activities and separating commissioning stages. That evidence explained both the steps already taken to limit delay and the remaining effect on completion.

For the mezzanine package, we separated the time allowed for the additional work from later delay to the steel bridge needed for final connections. Progress reports showed which installation and testing activities had been completed and which remained dependent on access. Comparing the instructed programme, updated forecasts and actual completion established the sequence behind the further delay.

We then assessed loss and expense against the relevant event periods. Costs were organised into staff and general preliminaries, direct operatives and supervision, agency labour and plant. Monthly costs were converted into daily rates and applied to the delay days falling within each month, allowing the assessment to reflect the periods actually affected.

The financial assessment filtered allowable and non-allowable costs and distinguished amounts already included in a variation quotation. In particular, preliminaries covered by the instructed mezzanine package were excluded from the additional prolongation assessment. The report brought the event analysis, cost calculations and supporting appendices together into a claim for approximately ten weeks and £200,000.

After the main contractor had reviewed the claim, we supported the client’s commercial team in turning the detail into a visual storyboard for directors and those leading the negotiations. It set out the contractual history, key constraints and programme evidence in a sequence the team could explain. We also spent a full day with the negotiating team, working through the claim and storyboard so that the people presenting the position understood the supporting detail.

Outcome

The client had a completed claim supported by an event chronology, programme comparisons and a cost assessment tied to the delay periods. The storyboard and preparation session gave its commercial team a practical way to present that position and respond to questions during negotiations.

Our work connected the detailed substantiation with the people who needed to use it. The team could explain the basis of the dates, the mitigation already achieved and the calculation of the remaining claim, with the underlying evidence available to support the discussion.