Concurrent delay in plain language: what it means and which records decide it
A design answer is late during a period when the contractor also has a resource problem. One side calls the delays concurrent and says that settles the request. The diary shows two events, but nobody has demonstrated what each did to the completion sequence.
Concurrent delay requires more examination than noticing two problems on the same dates. The UK Society of Construction Law’s protocol discusses employer and contractor risk events whose effects are each an effective cause of delay to completion. That is scoped guidance, not a universal entitlement rule. Build the records that let qualified people examine the events, their effects and the applicable agreement without assuming that calendar overlap alone settles time or money.
Make the timing question answerable
- Describe each event separately. State what happened, the affected work, when it was discovered and the response. Keep an observed event separate from an allegation about responsibility, and avoid assigning a legal risk category without the appropriate review.
- Preserve the relevant programmes. Retain the baseline and updates around the events, with status dates and revision references. Ask the scheduler about the contemporaneous logic and work status rather than relying on the final programme alone.
- Gather the work records. Connect daily reports, dated photographs, access records, delivery information and correspondence to the affected activities. Show what work continued, what stopped and which conditions remained unresolved.
- Distinguish event dates from effects. An event can begin on one date and affect a later handoff. Record those links and uncertainties so the assessment is not reduced to colouring two overlapping bars.
- Ask for qualified analysis. Have the appropriate scheduling and contract people examine whether each event affected completion and how the effects relate. Do not infer a critical effect from an activity being important, costly or inconvenient.
- Keep entitlement separate. Follow the required notice and submission process and retain disputed interpretations as disputed. Ask the responsible advisers to determine the agreement and governing-law treatment; the chronology itself does not award or deny a claim.
Checklist
Records for the assessment
- Separate event descriptions and dates.
- Programmes and status records from the relevant period.
- Evidence of affected work and continuing work.
- Event-to-effect links and visible uncertainty.
- Required notices and disputed interpretations preserved.
Check your understanding
Two events overlap, but nobody has shown their effect on the completion sequence. Is concurrent delay established?
