Claims » Extensions of Time

As-Built Programme in Delay Analysis — Foundation of the EOT Claim

In a delay claim, the as-built programme is the foundation on which everything else rests. It records what actually happened on the project. Without a credible as-built, the delay analysis floats free of the factual record — and is vulnerable to attack at every point.

4 min read · Updated 21/04/2026

In this article

1. Why reconstruction fails
2. The SCL Protocol position and the leading cases
3. Contemporaneous records — the evidential foundation
4. Practical application
5. Risks and mitigation
6. Conclusion

Key takeaway

The as-built programme must be constructed from contemporaneous records, not from memory or retrospective reconstruction. Where records are incomplete, the uncertainty must be acknowledged in the analysis. Courts have consistently rejected delay claims where the as-built is unsupported by daily site records — most notably in John Doyle v Laing and Walter Lilly v Mackay. The records that prove the claim are created every day of the project.

1. Why reconstruction fails

As-built programmes are often reconstructed after the fact — sometimes years after the events they purport to record. When constructed from memory, or from limited and incomplete records, they are unreliable. The reconstruction process, however well-intentioned, reflects the author’s perspective and interest. Activities are dated to support the narrative of the claim. Delays that benefited the contractor are minimised. Delays caused by the employer are maximised.

This is not necessarily deliberate dishonesty — it is the natural consequence of reconstructing a complex programme without rigorous contemporaneous records. The effect on the claim is the same: the as-built is challenged, cross-examined, and ultimately found to be less reliable than the few contemporaneous documents that do survive.

2. The SCL Protocol position and the leading cases

3. Contemporaneous records — the evidential foundation

The categories of contemporaneous record that matter for delay analysis are relatively well-defined. On a well-administered UAE project, each of these records should be generated daily, signed where appropriate, and archived in a way that preserves metadata:

• Daily site diaries, signed and dated by a designated person.
• Foreman’s records showing plant and labour deployed each day by trade and location.
• Delivery records for materials and equipment.
• Inspection and test records, particularly for hold-point activities.
• Photographs with preserved metadata — time, date, location.
• Meeting minutes — progress meetings, design coordination, subcontractor coordination.
• Correspondence on delay events, issued and received.

4. Practical application

For contractors

Implement a contemporaneous records system from day one. The system must be designed so that each record created is traceable back to its author, date, and source. These records create the as-built programme from contemporaneous evidence — not from retrospective reconstruction. This is the evidential foundation of every delay analysis we produce.

For delay experts

The as-built programme should be constructed from contemporaneous records with a clear audit trail from each recorded date to its source document. Where records are incomplete, this must be acknowledged openly and the uncertainty reflected in the analysis. An expert report that claims certainty beyond what the records support is vulnerable to effective cross-examination.

5. Risks and mitigation

For contractors, inadequate contemporaneous records produce a significantly weakened delay claim — often worth a fraction of the actual entitlement that the underlying facts would support. For employers, a weak as-built programme benefits neither party at arbitration; the tribunal is left to make uncertain findings that may not reflect what actually happened, and the risk of wrong findings is asymmetric.

Establish a contemporaneous records system before the project starts — not after a dispute arises. Assign responsibility for records to a designated person. Review the quality and completeness of records monthly. Records created during the project are worth far more than records reconstructed after the dispute crystallises, and the cost of maintaining the system during the project is a fraction of the value it preserves.

6. Conclusion

The as-built programme is not an administrative deliverable — it is the most important piece of evidence in any delay claim. The records that create it are generated every day of the project. Invest in creating them properly from day one, and the delay analysis will have the evidential foundation it needs to withstand scrutiny at DIAC or any other tribunal.

Is your records system ready to support a claim?

A records audit at the mid-point of a project is far cheaper than a forensic reconstruction at the end. We review records systems on live UAE projects and advise on what to fix before a dispute makes the deficiency permanent.

Book a 30-Minute Case Assessment →

Offices in Dubai · Available for instructions across the UAE and GCC