Scholarly Paper

Empirical Evidence of Extension of Time

in Construction Projects
Haroon Shabbar 1; Fahim Ullah 2; Bilal Ayub, Aff.M.ASCE 3;
Muhammad Jamaluddin Thaheem, Ph.D., Aff.M.ASCE 4; and Hamza Farooq Gabriel, Ph.D. 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Almost all construction projects face delays resulting in extension of time (EOT) or liquidated damages, depending upon which of
the two parties absorbs the responsibility as per terms of the contract. A number of factors influence the realistic assessment of EOT claims,
along with the level of awareness and technical support. The construction industry of Pakistan, which operates in a rather traditional and
outdated style, has never been assessed on such critical contract management aspects. It has resulted into various disputes, court cases, and
bad blood between stakeholders. To help facilitate the local practitioners, this study analyzed 29 EOT-influencing factors. Prevalent practices
in the construction industry also were investigated. On the basis of an extensive survey, it was found that delayed payment to the contractor
was the primary cause of EOT claims. Conclusions were drawn and recommendations are proposed to resolve EOT issues, float ownership,
and prolongation cost. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000217. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction various tools, techniques, and contractual provisions (Khamooshi

Project success has many dimensions, one of which is timely com-
pletion (Fawzy and EL-adaway 2013). It has been argued that it is the
most important matric to measure project success (Ullah et al. 2016).
But literature suggests that delays in construction projects are almost
inevitable, resulting in reduced confidence in the efficiency of the
construction industry (Arif and Morad 2013). It is reported that
70% of projects, on average, face delays that extend their duration
by 10–30% (Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006). Similarly, Aibinu and
Jagboro (2002) reported that construction delays are responsible
for 36–64% of cost overruns. Some delay causes can be attributed
to the contract, whereas some are beyond the control of stakeholders,
such as force majeure. In this regard, Aibinu (2009) suggested the use
of precontract negotiation to avoid and mitigate delay claims. Once a
project gets delayed, corrective measures of various kinds are initi-
ated, including fast and flash tracking (Pishdad-Bozorgi et al. 2016),
consumption of contingency for schedule control (Ford 2002), and
float use (El-Rayes and Jun 2009). These methods are supported by
1
Manager Contracts, Infrastructure Development Authority, Ground
Floor, 7 C-1, Gulberg III, Lahore, Punjab 54000, Pakistan. E-mail:
haroonshabbar@gmail.com
2
Lecturer, Dept. of Construction Engineering and Management,
NIT-SCEE, National Univ. of Sciences and Technology, H-12, Islamabad
44000, Pakistan. E-mail: fahimullah@nit.nust.edu.pk
3
Lecturer, Dept. of Construction Engineering and Management,
NIT-SCEE, National Univ. of Sciences and Technology, H-12, Islamabad
44000, Pakistan. E-mail: bilalayub@nit.nust.edu.pk
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement, NIT-SCEE, National Univ. of Sciences and Technology, H-12,
Islamabad 44000, Pakistan (corresponding author). E-mail: jamal.
thaheem@nit.nust.edu.pk
5
Professor, Dept. of Water Resources Engineering and Management,
NICE-SCEE, National Univ. of Sciences and Technology, H-12, Islamabad
44000, Pakistan. E-mail: hamza.gabriel@nice.nust.edu.pk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 7, 2015; approved on
December 28, 2016; published online on March 25, 2017. Discussion
period open until August 25, 2017; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Le-
gal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction,
© ASCE, ISSN 1943-4162.
and Abdi 2016; Trauner 2009).
However, concerted efforts are exercised to avoid it; once
occurred, the delay may result in either liquidated damages to
the contractor, an extension to stipulated time of completion, or
monetary compensation to the contractor (Hanna et al. 2016).
The decision for one of these measures depends on the responsibil-
ity of delay, established with the help of proper investigation and
analysis (Muhamad et al. 2016). Construction delays are caused by
several factors, including internal and external process time, errors
in documentation, unrealistic contract period, improper resource,
and risk allocation (Hanna et al. 2016; Larsen et al. 2015). Though
these factors are technical in nature, sometimes delays are caused
by managerial reasons, over monitoring, and scrutinization (Farrow
2007). As a result of delays caused by the client, an extension of
time (EOT) is granted to the contractor. However, EOT claims
are not always resolved so amicably owing to confrontational
approaches adopted by various parties. A classical case in this con-
nection is an overlapping of activities that is highly preferred by the
client, and that results in a minimum EOT. Inversely, the contractor,
notwithstanding the multitasking approach of the client, considers
activities in a series (one after the other), resulting in a maximum
EOT (El-adaway et al. 2016). Literature suggests that, globally,
EOT claims are on rise. For example, the number of construction
claims submitted to the American Arbitration Association (AAA)
reached almost 25% of the total $1.7 million claims presented
over the past 74 years (Kassab et al. 2006). According to Odeh
and Battaineh (2002), the average ratio of actual completion time
to the planned contract duration is 160.5% for road projects and
120.3% for building projects because of the delays and EOT
claims. Moreover, according to Williams (2003), in the total wasted
time, 70% is associated with data-searching organization. To avoid
any conflicts and reach a mutually beneficial solution, a number of
analytical methods are available, such as window analysis and time
impact analysis. (Muhamad et al. 2016). These methods take into
consideration various factors identified through literature review
and interviews that directly or indirectly affect the realistic deter-
mination of EOT (Muhamad et al. 2016; Birgonul et al. 2014).
The construction industry around the world has a poor record in
terms of completing projects in a stipulated time (El-adaway et al.

© ASCE 04517008-1 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1

 2016; Farrow 2007), and Pakistan is no exception. Pakistan has
issues of quality and subsequent project success as highlighted
by Siddiqui et al. (2016). Further, it has overrun issue in terms
of cost and time (Maqsoom and Charoenngam 2014). These over-
runs cause delays to projects and, as a result, their performance
remains poor. These studies provide useful insights into the con-
struction industry of Pakistan and its current status. Also, the rea-
sons for major delays have been reported as law-and-order
situations, design changes, lack of funds, delayed payments, unre-
alistic tender price, and inappropriate contract types (Choudhry
et al. 2014; Farooqui and Azhar 2014; Gardezi et al. 2014). In a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
recent study by Razzaq et al. (2016), time and cost overrun factors
for international joint ventures (IJVs) in Pakistan were explored and
discussed. However, these studies are basic in their approach and
vigor, raising a need for more detailed analysis. In this regard,
Haseeb et al. (2011) provided a useful study for identifying prob-
lems of projects and effects of delays in the construction industry of
Pakistan. However, the reasons and events causing such delays in
various contractual arrangements are yet to be explored. Not only
are the reasons or events causing delays such as variations, force
majeure, and adverse weather conditions not well studied, methods
for dealing with them also are not available for local practitioners.
The core objectives of this research are to study the importance
of critical factors, delays, and EOT cases, and point out potential
flaws in prevalent practices in construction industry of Pakistan.
In doing so, this research investigates the importance of delay
analysis in dealing with EOT claims; analyzes top factors that usu-
ally are not given importance in prevalent practices, such as cost of
prolongation and ownership of float; and formulates a framework
for realistic determination of the time extension for EOT claims.
It is expected that the findings will help construction practitioners
have a better understanding of EOT settlement resulting in an im-
proved performance of the construction industry.
Literature Review
Extension of time is the compensation granted to the contractor in
the case of delays for which he is not responsible to prevent incur-
rence of undue liquidated damages (El-adaway et al. 2016).
According to Anuar Othman et al. (2006), EOT is a result of an
excusable delay that occurs when a contractor is behind schedule
because of events beyond his control. The Society of Construction
Law’s (SCL) (2002) Delay and Disruption Protocol states that a
major benefit of EOT to the contractor is the relief from the liability
of liquidated damages, whereas the client may benefit from avoid-
ing the situation of time-at-large.
Construction delays may be categorized into four groups:
critical versus noncritical delays, excusable versus nonexcusable
delays, compensable versus noncompensable delays, and concur-
rent delays. These have been explained by various authors. Accord-
ing to Trauner (2009) and Callahan et al. (1992), the events causing
delays to project completion dates are known as critical delays,
whereas those which do not affect the project completion date
are considered noncritical. Further, whether a delay is excusable
or nonexcusable is decided on the basis of contractual provisions
(Trauner 2009). Vasilyeva-Lyulina et al. (2015) claimed that an
excusable delay is an event characterized by the fact that it was
both unforeseeable and beyond the control of the contractor.
Mubarak (2015) defines nonexcusable delays as the ones for which
the contractor is either directly responsible or should have foreseen
the delay-causing event. It is further explained that in the event of a
nonexcusable delay, the contractor is neither entitled to an EOT nor
any monetary compensation. Further, standard forms of contract
© ASCE 04517008-2
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1
conditions specify types of delay that entitle the contractor to
an EOT.
Similarly, according to Callahan et al. (1992) and Mubarak
(2015), an excusable delay can be categorized into excusable com-
pensable and excusable noncompensable subclasses. Mubarak
(2015) claimed that compensable delays are caused by the client
or any of his representatives. Differing site conditions, changes
in work and access to site are some examples of compensable
delays in many standard construction contracts. Further, it is ex-
plained that noncompensable delays are those delays that are
excusable, but do not entitle the contractor to any monetary com-
pensation. Last, a concurrent delay is characterized by a combina-
tion of two or more independent delay events taking place within
the same timeframe (Arif and Morad 2013). Further, a concurrent
delay may be excusable or nonexcusable. According to the Society
of Construction Law’s (2002) Delay and Disruption Protocol, true
concurrent delay is the occurrence of two or more delay events at
the same time: (1) an employer’s risk event, and (2) a contractor risk
event; the effects of both are felt at the same time. The protocol
further explains that when true concurrent delay occurs, the con-
tractor should nevertheless be entitled to an EOT for employer
delay-to-completion. When contractor delay-to-completion occurs
concurrently with employer delay-to-completion, the contractor’s
concurrent delay should not reduce any EOT due.
A delay may be any type among the four groups. Each group
has its own set of procedures for resolving the associated claims.
According to Mubarak (2015), resolving delay claims is one of the
core objectives of scheduling a project. Construction schedules
have been used widely for resolving delay claims (Babar et al.
2016; Perera et al. 2016). Review boards and courts encourage
the use of critical path method (CPM) scheduling to identify delays
and delay responsibilities (Babar et al. 2016; Bayraktar et al. 2012).
Ndekugri et al. (2008) defined delay analysis as the task of inves-
tigating the events that caused project delay to assess financial li-
abilities of the contracting parties. According to Nguyen and Ibbs
(2008), the five most commonly used methodologies for delay
analysis are: (1) as-planned versus as-built (total time) method,
(2) impacted as-planned (what-if) method, (3) collapsed as-built
(but-for) method, (4) windows analysis method, and (5) time im-
pact analysis (modified as-built) method.
As-planned versus as-built method compares two schedules and
work with the assumption that one party causes no delays, but the
other party causes all delays. It displays the net impact of all delay
events on the project completion date (Nguyen and Ibbs 2008). In
impacted as-planned method, also known as what-if or adjusted-
baseline method, the analyst, after specifying the as-planned sched-
ule, inserts changes that cause delays in the schedule (Trauner
2009). These changes are considered the only identified delays re-
corded during the project that may have affected its duration. The
time between the date of completion presented on as-planned
schedule and the one on impacted as-planned schedule is consid-
ered the delay for which a contractor is entitled to an EOT. In col-
lapsed as-built method, all contemporary records and project
documentation are studied and a detailed as-built schedule is pre-
pared. Then, the activities that affected the project are subtracted or
removed from as-built schedule (Golparvar-Fard et al. 2011).
Hence, the difference between end dates of as-built and collapsed
as-built schedules obtained by subtracting activities from as-built
schedule is considered to be the delay.
The windows analysis method is on the basis of a CPM sched-
uling technique in which the total project duration is broken down
into small and manageable time periods, referred to as windows.
Delay events occurring in each window of time are analyzed suc-
cessively by concentrating on the critical paths (Hegazy and Zhang
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 2005). The criteria for selecting the size of these windows is de-
cided according to major project milestones, occurrence of major
delay events, and issuance of schedule revisions (Mehany and
Grigg 2016). Last, time impact analysis method (TIA) is one of
the most widely accepted techniques (Perera et al. 2016). In this
method, the focus is on a specific delay event instead of a particular
time period as in the window analysis method. Further, the effects
of delays are analyzed in a chronological manner, using an updated
CPM schedule to incorporate each delay into the schedule
(Bayraktar et al. 2012). The amount of delay resulted from each
of the delaying activity is then determined by comparing the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
end dates of the project before and after addition of each delay
event into the schedule (Ndekugri et al. 2008). Although this
method too has some drawbacks, the Society of Construction
Law (2002) recommends it.
Regardless of the technique used for delay analysis, ownership
of float is a controversial issue in delay-claim litigation. According
to Trauner (2009), float is a measure of schedule flexibility and
indicates the extent to which an activity can be delayed before it
starts causing overall delay. Therefore, both contractor and client
have their own arguments to claim the float available in noncritical
activities, turning it into a bone of contention between the parties
(El-adaway et al. 2016). In general, there are three primary con-
cepts of total float ownership: client’s, contractor’s, and project’s
ownership. Compensation for prolongation cost is also an impor-
tant issue when dealing with delay claims. Delay causes prolonga-
tion that, in turn, results in increased cost (Society of Construction
Law 2002). Standard contract forms, especially that of the Inter-
national Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), entitle the
contractor to recover prolongation compensation for time-related
resources and site overheads. As per the core principle proposed
by the protocol, the objective is to put the contractor in the same
financial position he would have been in if the employer risk event
had not occurred.
The construction industry of Pakistan is marred with inadequa-
cies in terms of time and cost overruns that could be linked to vari-
ous factors. It has seriously low political and economic stability
indices of −2.49 and þ44, respectively (Razzaq et al. 2016).
Underperformance of its construction industry can be narrowed
down to its inadequate contractual practices, risk sharing, and sub-
sequent management (Maqsoom and Charoenngam 2014; Farooqui
and Azhar 2014). The country relies highly on traditional contrac-
tual arrangements of design-bid-build having fixed and rigid
clauses that fuel the adversarial relationships between the stake-
holders (Noor et al. 2012). In recent practices, a shift toward
nontraditional and managed methods, such as public private part-
nerships (PPP) that involve huge investments (Ullah et al. 2016),
has been observed. Offsite construction techniques also have gotten
recent attention as reported by Ansari et al. (2016). Also the turnkey
and design-build projects recently have been adopted (Chen et al.
2015). Choudhry (2016) highlighted the inexperience of local in-
dustry in which different professionals are hired for different serv-
ices, making the integration and corresponding management
difficult. It was suggested to involve design consultants in the
planning and execution phases to help the management team deal
with design issues that escalate the EOT claims. Although the in-
dustry seems to be moving toward better and advanced contractual
practices, the reliance on traditional approaches is still significant.
Hence, the rigid traditional clauses such as “no damage for delay,”
“unrealistic liquidated damages,” and “all risks to be borne by the
contractors” are still in practice (Choudhry and Iqbal 2013; Haseeb
et al. 2011). As a result, EOT and dispute cases are regularly re-
ported by local industry.
© ASCE 04517008-3
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1
In this regards, the establishment of the Pakistan Engineering
Council (PEC) has streamlined the local contractual practices.
Its root is on the basis of the FIDIC and being a representative
member, PEC has its own set of contractual regimes that are a
modified version of the FIDIC addressing local needs. The standard
bidding document for civil works provides details of various con-
tractual mechanisms followed throughout the country. It is further
aided with documents for electrical and mechanical (E&M) works,
small contracts, time-based consultancy assignments, lump-sum
consultancy assignments, and consultancy services for smaller
projects (PEC 2007). From the contractual arrangements to the fi-
ner details, such as payment scheme and price adjustments, these
documents provide detailed guidelines for local practice. The real
challenge in this regard is the implementation: the policy and docu-
ment was instated in 2007, but its follow-up was not looked into
until recently in the form of changes to PEC structure, and it was
assigned to the ministry of science and technology. It is expected
that the policy will be implemented with the immediate effect of
yielding fruitful results because of this development (PEC 2016).
The literature shows that 29 factors have been identified that
influence EOT assessment, which are ranked by involving experts
from the construction industry of Pakistan, to have an idea about
the current status, understanding, and assessment methods used for
EOT assessment. Further, keeping in view the importance and lack
of published work on prolongation costs and float ownership,
guidelines were drafted for handling them.
Research Methodology
For this research, a questionnaire survey approach was adopted to
identify and analyze different factors affecting realistic assessment
of EOT. Twenty-nine factors involved in EOT assessment were
identified after extensive literature review, interviews from experts
in the field, and personal experience of the authors in the capacity
of contracts and planning engineers. For each of the 29 factors, both
yes/no type and Likert scale-based questions were designed so that
not only the respondents’ importance rankings were analyzed, but
some data over prevalent practices regarding those factors also were
studied. The questionnaire consisted of three major parts: (1) re-
spondents’ information was collected, (2) general questions regard-
ing prevalent practices were asked, and (3) questions regarding the
factors involved in EOT assessment were asked. These factors were
related to schedule, delay analysis, ownership of float, and prolon-
gation cost.
The sample that was chosen for this research was randomly se-
lected from civil engineers working with various construction com-
panies having projects all over Pakistan. The sample contained all
three types of contractual stakeholders: clients, consultants, and
contractors with a minimum experience of three years. The ques-
tionnaire was distributed for online filling and submission, and was
in hard form when visiting the potential respondents. Out of 130
invited respondents, 105 total responses were received and after
screening, a sample of 97 valid responses was used. Hence, a
74.6% valid response rate was achieved. Setting the confidence
level at 95%, and using Shash and Abdul-Hadi (1993) and Dillman
(2000), the sample size was 96, with a sampling error of 10%.
Analysis of the collected data by Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS), gave a maximum sampling error of 9.8%.
Hence, a sample comprised of 97 respondents was quite reliable
for further analysis.
The responses to each statement then were used to calculate
the relative importance index (RII) ranging from 0 to 1 using
Eq. (1), in which w represents weighting given to each factor by
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 the respondents ranging from 1 to 5, A is the highest weight (5), and Table 1. Tests of Normality: Shapiro-Wilk Test
N is the sample size Shapiro-Wilk test
P
W EOT factors Statistic df Sig.
RII ¼ 0 ≤ RII ≤ 1 ð1Þ
A×N F01 0.864 97 0.000
F02 0.512 97 0.000
Microsoft Excel and SPSS-18 were used to analyze the F03 0.716 97 0.000
data. The study followed the usual level of significance, i.e., F04 0.596 97 0.000
α ¼ 0.05. Statistical techniques used for analysis were Cronbach’s F05 0.468 97 0.000
coefficient alpha method for reliability, Shapiro-Wilk test for nor- F06 0.848 97 0.000
mality, and Kruskal-Wallis test for difference in perception of F07 0.654 97 0.000
stakeholder groups (Devore 2015). F08 0.581 97 0.000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

F09 0.448 97 0.000

F10 0.492 97 0.000
Results and Discussions F11 0.623 97 0.000
F12 0.614 97 0.000
It was revealed that the timely completion of local projects is rarely F13 0.773 97 0.000
witnessed because of a number of diversified and seen/unforeseen F14 0.553 97 0.000
F15 0.620 97 0.000
factors. Such factors cause delays in time and result into EOT
F16 0.856 97 0.000
claims, forcing the project completion time to be shifted to a F17 0.528 97 0.000
new date. F18 0.804 97 0.000
F19 0.767 97 0.000
F20 0.624 97 0.000
Characteristics of Respondents F21 0.733 97 0.000
F22 0.792 97 0.000
As for distribution, 34% of respondents belonged to client organ- F23 0.739 97 0.000
izations, 37.1% were consultants, and 28.9% were from contractor F24 0.777 97 0.000
firms. In terms of experience, approximately 19% respondents had F25 0.761 97 0.000
accumulated over 10 years of construction experience, 40% be- F26 0.747 97 0.000
tween 6 and 10 years, and 41% had less than 5 years of industrial F26 0.856 97 0.000
experience. In terms of working position, approximately 34% of the F27 0.715 97 0.000
respondents belonged to lower management positions, 56% middle F28 0.766 97 0.000
F29 0.753 97 0.000
management, and 4% occupied top management positions in their
organizations. Last, in terms of the working sector, 32% of the re- Note: df = degree of freedom; Sig. = significance value.
spondents represented the public sector, 30.9% represented semi-
government, and 37.1% represented the private sector.

Results of Statistical Tests

For the data collected for this questionnaire survey, Cronbach’s

coefficient method was performed using SPSS, and its value was
calculated as 0.894. Its higher value indicated that the data were
consistent and reliable for further analysis.
The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to check the normality
of the data. Significance values found were 0.000; when larger
than 0.05, the data are sufficiently normal. Therefore, as shown
in Table 1, data were not distributed normally and nonparametric
tests were required for further analysis.
Because the collected data was nonparametric, the Kruskal
Wallis test was performed to check whether all stakeholders had Fig. 1. Stakeholders’ perception about realistic assessment of EOT in
similar perceptions regarding factors involved in EOT claims. their projects
Figs. 1–3 show differences in perception because significance
values were less than 0.05.
For schedule related factors, results showed that all three stake-
holders had the same perception except the factor: schedule sub- (2016) in their study, in which it was concluded that use of recom-
mitted by contractor is on the same software recommended by mended software establishes trust in data exchange and results in
client [significance value (Sig.): 0.0231]. Upon close observation a lower cost impact of inefficient interoperability. Owing to the
of RII values (clients, 0.7757; consultants, 0.8278; and contractors, existence of nontraditional approaches in local construction indus-
0.7214) for this factor, it was found that all three stakeholders gave try, the use of software and latest managerial practices is yet to
different importance; consultants especially gave very high impor- mature.
tance to this factor as compared with other stakeholders. Being the For delay analysis related factors, contractors, clients, and
party that is responsible to assess the EOT claim, they were most consultants had the same perception in EOT claim assessment be-
concerned about scheduling software because operational inconsis- cause of p-values greater than 0.05 except for the factor: client’s
tencies occurred because of different internal data management objections on the time of extension granted can be satisfied
of different programs. This also was highlighted by Tibaut et al. (Sig.: 0.0001). When the RII values of all three stakeholders

© ASCE 04517008-4 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Perception about events that cause EOT
Fig. 3. Perception about type of projects with respect to frequency of
EOT claims in their projects
regarding this factor were analyzed, it was observed that contrac-
tors (0.6500) gave very low importance to this factor compared
with clients (0.8364) and consultants (0.8667). This points to rather
casual behavior, probably on the basis of the lack of awareness
about the objections raised by clients on EOT assessment issues.
Again, having developed the expertise in traditional design-bid-
build method over the years, lower stakes in the project, and better
relationships with legal fraternity, local contractors tended to drag
the EOT disputes to litigation to pressure the clients into granting
time extensions.
For ownership of float-related factors, contractors, clients, and
consultants had the same perception except for the factor: float
ownership is predetermined, disputes regarding time issues can
be avoided (Sig.: 0.0256). Analyzing the RII of all three stakehold-
ers (clients, 0.8364; consultants, 0.8222; and contractors, 0.9357)
regarding this delay factor, it was observed that contractors consid-
ered it highly important. Contractual language is required to assign
its ownership and trade it as a commodity (De La Garza et al. 1991).
Linking it to Farooqui and Azhar (2014), inadequate contractual
practices exist in the local construction industry. Further, because
of dependence on the traditional contractual systems, the use of
planning software and other ICT tools was limited (Abbas et al.
2016). This hindered the critical decision making, such as float
ownership, which was a serious concern in developed construction
© ASCE 04517008-5
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1
industries, but was casually dealt with as per local practices, leading
to both EOT claims and disputes.
In the case of prolongation cost related factors, contractors,
clients, and consultants had different perceptions regarding most
of them because of p-values smaller than 0.05. When the RII of
all the three stakeholders was analyzed, it was observed that for
the factor, cost of prolongation is entitled to the contractor (Sig:
0.0434), contractors gave very high importance (0.9214) as com-
pared with the other two stakeholders (clients, 0.8545; and consul-
tants, 0.8333). For the factor, if prolongation cost is entitled, claims
and consequent disputes can be avoided (Sig.: 0.0185), again con-
tractors gave very high importance (0.9214), whereas consultants
(0.8111) and clients (0.8969) gave relatively moderate importance.
Similarly, if prolongation cost was entitled, the party that would
bear the cost of revalidation of bank guarantees and insurance
was considered highly important by contractors (0.9071), whereas
consultants (0.7944) did not concur. This pointed to the fact that
clauses of liquidated damages and all risks to be borne by contrac-
tors constrain such clauses and, as a retaliating strategy, prolonga-
tion costs were highly sought after. This aired the adversarial
relationship that escalated disputes in local context.
Ranking of Factors by RII
Ranking of all groups of factors on the basis of their combined RII
values is discussed with greater details for the top 3-ranked factors.
Schedule Related Factors
There were 10 factors identified that were related to realistic project
duration and project schedule EOT claims assessment. Importance
ranking on the basis of the RII values calculated for all three stake-
holders is shown in Table 2.
Results from combined RII analysis showed that with a value of
0.9526, the highest ranked factor was: if realistic project duration
and schedule are adopted, delay analysis techniques can be used
to assess the actual impact of delays on the schedule. The results
indicated that to be able to make use of delay analysis techniques
for better assessment, it was imperative to have realistic project
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Table 2. Stakeholders’ Response to Schedule Related Factors
Clients’ Consultants’ Contractors’ Combined Ranking within
Serial number Schedule-related factors RII RII RII RII the group
How important it is:
1 To have realistic project schedules in projects to avoid 0.9394 0.8944 0.9429 0.9237 4
EOT claim
2 To have involvement of all parties in prebid meetings 0.8667 0.8278 0.8071 0.8351 9
for preparation of realistic project schedule
3 To have project schedules on scheduling software 0.9273 0.8778 0.9214 0.9072 8
4 That the schedule is continuously tracked during the 0.9273 0.9000 0.9571 0.9155 5
course of project
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5 That the schedule submitted by contractor is on the 0.7758 0.8278 0.7214 0.7794 10
same software recommended by client
6 Estimate the time required for the project first, and 0.9091 0.8889 0.9286 0.9072 7
then allot project completion time rather than
tentatively assigning the project completion time and
making the schedule according to it
7 To have an assessment of available resources for the 0.9333 0.9222 0.9214 0.9258 3
project when making schedule
If realistic project duration and schedule are adopted:
8 Delay analysis techniques can be used to assess the 0.9636 0.9333 0.9643 0.9526 1
actual impact of delays on the schedule
9 Project progress can be tracked efficiently throughout 0.9576 0.9222 0.9500 0.9320 2
the project
10 If the contract period (time of completion) is realistic, 0.9273 0.9000 0.9143 0.9134 6
EOT claims will be less, and time spent on assessment
of unnecessary EOT claims can be saved

durations and schedules in contracts. This was important in EOT
assessment because without delay analysis, it was difficult to con-
clusively assess the effect of delays, and without a well-developed
schedule in place, it was difficult to perform delay analysis
(Muhamad et al. 2016). This called for using the latest managerial
practices and tools in local industry, such as planning and sched-
uling software, and adoption of more reliable contractual methods
(Siddiqui et al. 2016; Abbas et al. 2016). Recent literature trends
depict the local construction industry as gradually adopting these
practices, but it is too early to see fruitful results.
The factor ranked as second highest was: if realistic project du-
ration and schedule are adopted, project progress can be efficiently
tracked throughout the project. It has a combined RII value of
0.9320. A value this high suggested that having realistic project
durations and schedules were essential elements for tracking and
monitoring the project’s progress to enhance project success chan-
ces. This was recently highlighted by Khamooshi and Abdi (2016)
in their study. It was this unrealistic duration estimation that caused
extensive delays and EOT claims in the local construction industry
(Babar et al. 2016). The rigid clauses of all risks to be borne by
contractors clouded their judgment of realistic estimates and di-
verted their focus. Thus, monitoring and proper tracking of project
durations suffered. This can be aided with the use of advanced
contractual methods, such as PPP, turnkey, and other project and
construction management approaches. Though their adoption has
started, the results are yet to be seen.
The factor, assessment of available resources for the project
while making schedule, was placed in the third position by stake-
holders, with a combined RII value of 0.9258. Again, a value
greater than 0.9 indicates that stakeholders give high importance
to assessment of resources available with the contractor. This
was because the party who schedules and executes the work should
have a good assessment of resources available to perform the tasks
(Siu et al. 2016). This would result in a realistic schedule. As re-
ported by Razzaq et al. (2016), resource constraints existed in the
local construction industry and were further escalated in inter-
national joint venture (IJV) projects. Nonavailability of resources
in general and, specifically, the lack of skilled labors and techno-
logically sound experts, constrained the local industry and led
to unrealistic and improper resource assessment and subsequent
allocation.
Delay Analysis Related Factors
There were 10 factors identified that were related to delay analysis
in EOT claim assessment. Importance ranking on the basis of RII
values calculated for all three stakeholders is shown in Table 3.
On the basis of the combined RII values calculated for all delay
analysis related factors, considering concurrent delays was the
highest ranked factor with a combined RII value of 0.9299. Hence,
as per the opinion of stakeholders, it was very important to consider
the effect of concurrency of delay events and their impacts on the
schedule. According to the Society of Construction Law (2002),
effects of concurrency of delays have direct influence in the entitle-
ment of both EOT and prolongation cost. Therefore, it is extremely
important to consider this factor in delay analysis as highlighted by
Al-Gahtani et al. (2016). This usually was neglected in local prac-
tice because the traditional contract types did value highly the
concurrency of events leading to disputes. Although these have
been incorporated in PEC price adjustment clauses for both local
and international contracts (PEC 2016), the lack of implementation
resulted in underperformance.
The second highest ranked factor ranked was: performing delay
analysis for assessment of EOT, with a combined RII value of
0.9031. It was indicative of the fact that for realistic assessment
of EOT, it is extremely important to use delay analysis techniques
on the construction schedules rather than manually calculating the
number of days to be extended; this also was indicated by Aziz and
Abdel-Hakam (2016). The third factor with the same combined RII
of 0.9031 was: if delay analysis is performed, critical or most

© ASCE 04517008-6 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1

 Table 3. Stakeholders’ Response to Delay Analysis Related Factors
Clients’ Consultants’ Contractors’ Combined Ranking within
Serial number Delay analysis–related factors RII RII RII RII the group
How important it is:
11 To perform delay analysis for assessment 0.933 0.900 0.907 0.903 2
of EOT
12 To choose a proper delay analysis method 0.824 0.872 0.835 0.845 7
suitable for your case
13 To consider concurrent delays 0.951 0.927 0.907 0.929 1
14 To consider overlapping delays 0.878 0.888 0.942 0.901 4
15 To use computer aided delay analysis 0.775 0.788 0.707 0.760 10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

techniques
If delay analysis is performed:
16 Critical or most damaging delay events can 0.933 0.866 0.95 0.903 3
be identified
17 Client’s objections on the time of extension 0.836 0.866 0.650 0.783 9
granted can be satisfied
18 Contractors objections on the time of 0.812 0.883 0.821 0.833 8
extension granted can be satisfied
19 Claims and disputes can be minimized 0.909 0.905 0.914 0.899 5
20 Time and cost overruns can be avoided 0.890 0.861 0.835 0.863 6

damaging delay events can be identified. The stakeholders strongly
believed that by making use of suitable delay analysis techniques,
e.g., time impact analysis, in which the effect of each delay event
can be analyzed separately, the events causing the most damaging
delays can be identified (Perera et al. 2016). This also will help in
avoiding such events in future projects and mitigating their effects
if they occur. Because of a lack of proper management practices in
the local construction industry, the delay analysis, which is a core
EOT assessment method, was not followed. Moreover, even PEC
does not go into the required level of details for EOT assessment,
and it superficially deals with it by just mentioning that delay analy-
sis is to be performed, instead of a thorough and holistic mecha-
nism. The answer to what, how, and how much was not provided,
which escalated the deteriorating situation of EOT assessment in
local context.
Ownership of Float Related Factors
There were four factors identified that related to ownership of float
in EOT claims assessment. Importance ranking on the basis of the
RII values calculated for all three stakeholders is shown in Table 4.
Results showed that the factor, determining ownership of float in
the start of project, was placed first by the respondents with a com-
bined RII value of 0.8515. Hence, almost all stakeholders believed
that inclusion of a float ownership clause in the contract was a
must, so that the float ownership issue would not become a bone
of contention at any time during the project; this also is highlighted
by Al-Gahtani et al. (2016).
The second factor with same combined RII value was: if owner-
ship of float is predetermined, disputes regarding time issues can
be avoided. It has been observed in construction industries all over
the world that contractors vehemently contest float ownership,
stressing that because the schedules are prepared by them, any time
cushion in noncritical activities belongs to them. Although clients
conversely hold the opinion that because they own all project as-
sets, such as the schedule, they own the float. Therefore, if float
ownership is determined at the beginning of the project, such dis-
putes can be avoided. When such disputes are avoided, consider-
able time and cost that would otherwise be wasted on the disputes
and litigation, also will be saved. The third factor, if ownership of
float is predetermined, time and cost overrun can be avoided, had a
combined RII of 0.8412. This also was highlighted in a recent study
by El-Sayegh and Rabie (2016).
As previously mentioned, float ownership and determination
were critical issues faced by the local construction industry. Razzaq
et al. (2016) highlighted critical factors for IJVs in Pakistan leading
to both cost and time overruns, which easily can be managed if the
float is properly allocated. Unfortunately, in local context, PEC
documents or existing practices do not necessarily assign it to a
party at the start of the project. As a result, it becomes a point
of conflict between the parties. This float ownership, if properly
allocated, can answer many of the EOT issues locally because

Table 4. Stakeholders’ Response to Ownership of Float Related Factors

Clients’ Consultants’ Contractors’ Combined Ranking within
Serial number Ownership of float–related factors RII RII RII RII the group
How important it is:
21 To determine the ownership of float at the 0.812 0.855 0.892 0.851 1
start of project
If ownership of float is predetermined:
22 Disputes regarding time issues can be 0.836 0.822 0.935 0.851 2
avoided
23 Either party that owns the float can manage 0.836 0.816 0.871 0.828 4
more efficiently its time
24 Time and cost overrun can be avoided 0.854 0.827 0.878 0.841 3

© ASCE 04517008-7 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1

 Table 5. Stakeholders’ Response to Prolongation Cost-Related Factors
Clients’
Serial number Prolongation cost–related factors RII
How important it is:
25 That the cost of prolongation is entitled to 0.854
the contractor
If prolongation cost is entitled:
26 Claims and consequent disputes can be 0.897
avoided
27 Problem of who bears the cost of 0.872
revalidation of bank guarantees and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
insurance will be resolved
28 Time and cost overrun can be avoided 0.890
the otherwise demanded extension of time easily can be compen-
sated by the available floats.
Prolongation Cost Related Factors
There were four factors identified that were related to prolongation
cost in EOT claims assessment. Importance ranking on the basis
of the RII values calculated for all three stakeholders is shown
in Table 5.
Results show that the factor, if prolongation cost is entitled,
claims and disputes can be avoided, was assigned the highest rank
by clients, consultants, and contractors with a combined RII value
of 0.8722. This indicated that in the case of compensable delays
(employer risk events), it was very important that the contractor
was paid the cost incurred on account of any time related resources,
otherwise claims and disputes might arise with repercussions. This
is evident from the case of Kulekhani, Nepal, as highlighted by
Dahal and Rai (2016).
The factors that were ranked second and third were: if prolon-
gation cost is entitled, time and cost overrun can be avoided; and
that the cost of prolongation is entitled to the contractor; these had
combined RII values of 0.8722 and 0.8660, respectively. This
showed that prolongation costs should be paid to the contractors
when applicable, and that doing so would save time and cost over-
runs, as also highlighted by Alwee et al. (2016). Locally this was a
serious matter of concern because many of the disputes were asso-
ciated with the prolongation costs and their entitlements. Because
of the lack of specific clauses, the owners intended to withhold
these costs and, conversely, contractors wanted to be paid for costs
that were not incurred due their faults. Thus a stress tended to exist
between these two key stakeholders, leading to disputes and claims.
Other Findings
As previously discussed, some questions were included to ask
about prevalent practices in the respondents’ projects regarding fac-
tors relating to project schedules and assessment of EOT claims.
The responses are shown graphically in Figs. 1–3 and conclusions
are drawn accordingly.
Fig. 1 shows that most of the contractors strongly disagreed
about the realistic assessment of EOT in their projects. The contrac-
tor’s representatives reported that clients did not asses the EOT real-
istically and assigned lower extension than demanded. They had
the perception that contractors demanded overly high durations
for EOT and, in doing so, the approved EOT was way behind
the realistic one. Hence, there were no contractors that strongly
agreed about realistic estimations of EOT. Further, the authenticity
of the EOT assessment was questionable because among the 33%
representatives of clients, 20% assigned values in the range of not
© ASCE 04517008-8
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1
Consultants’ Contractors’ Combined Ranking within
RII RII RII the group
0.833 0.921 0.866 3
0.811 0.921 0.872 1
0.794 0.907 0.843 4
0.838 0.892 0.872 2
sure to strongly disagree when asked about realistic assessments of
EOT in their projects. Furthermore, an extremely small portion of
clients and consultants strongly agreed with the EOT assessment
being realistic. The consultants were the only stakeholders that
seemed positive about the realistic assessments of EOT, and most
of them assigned the value of slightly to strongly agree. This
pointed to a clear lack of understanding and to the presence of
an adversarial air between the stakeholders. This can be associated
partially with the lack of EOT assessment clauses in local contrac-
tual practices and documents. Also, sticking to the traditional con-
tract systems and not exploring innovative and latest techniques
bars the local practitioners from exposure to updated and reliable
methods for such assessment.
In response to another question about the project schedule to be
realistic, 62% of the overall respondents answered negatively, 34%
in affirmation, whereas 4% were not sure. This shows that the ma-
jority of the parties did not trust the schedules to be realistic and
achievable in the allotted time. This finding correlated with the
demographics of respondents; almost 63% respondents belonged
to government and semigovernment organizations in which politi-
cal influences dictated the decision making. This is valid because
politicians in general want to deliver the projects during their ten-
ures to gain political mileage resulting into unrealistic planned du-
rations (Iyer and Jha 2006). Influencing major project decisions by
these political officials, who were not well-versed with engineering
concepts, resulted in EOT and delay claims. This lack of trust on
realistic duration estimations resulted in disputes and EOT claims,
raising serious concerns for decision and policy makers. This lack
of trust can be avoided by promoting trust among the parties by
introduction of clauses in local contracts that compel stakeholders
to use the latest software, monitoring tools, and innovative contrac-
tual methods. It can also be integrated into PEC’s policy guidelines,
in the long run, for the betterment of local industry.
Similarly, when asked about project tracking and related fea-
tures of management, almost 70% of the respondents replied neg-
atively to its use in the construction industry of Pakistan. This
primarily was because of reliance on outdated tools and techniques
in local industry and lack of awareness of the latest and up-to-
date software, such as MicroSoft Project, Primavera, and other
building information modeling (BIM) tools such as Autodesk Revit.
Although recently observed by the authors and highlighted by the
respondents, these software are increasingly adopted by construc-
tion professionals, yet their effects are yet to be seen. Further, 25%
of respondents replying in the affirmative, confirmed the recent
adoption of project tracking initiatives. The remaining 5% of re-
spondents had no idea about project tracking. This primarily
was because of the absence of clauses in local contracts regarding
use of software for project tracking and monitoring. Pakistan
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Engineering Council civil works documents and existing practices
do not stress the use of software and information and communica-
tions technology (ICT) in construction. As a result, the industry is
under performing, which can be improved upon considerably by
inducing the desired flexibility to be innovative and adoptive.
When asked about the contract time being realistic, 67% of the
respondents replied positively, 26% negatively, and 7% were not
sure. Most of the affirmative respondents were representatives of
the private sector, whereas, as expected, the majority of the negat-
ing respondents were from the public sector who were influenced
by political pressure and forced to unrealistically accelerate the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
projects. As a result, in their opinion as previously highlighted,
the contract time was not assigned realistically. The next question
was about the use of delay analysis techniques in local construction
industry. Following the previous negative trend, 55% of the re-
spondents negated the use of delay analysis in the local construc-
tion industry. As much as 10% of the respondents had no idea about
the term delay analysis, whereas 35% of the respondents affirmed
the use of delay analysis. As previously highlighted, primarily be-
cause of the lack of education about the latest and innovative tools
and techniques, the local industry was performing below expected
levels. This added to the traditional adversarial relation between
contractual stakeholders and promoted the blame game locally.
Further, the lack of clauses in existing documents regarding trans-
parency of contract awards and contractor selection added to this
issue. The local industry seemed overly inclined toward the tradi-
tional low-bid system as compared with more recent practices, such
as best value, which added to the poor performance of the local
industry.
Among the negatively dominated trends, a few positives did ex-
ist. When asked about the perception of concurrency, overlapping
delays and their effects, most of the respondents replied in affirma-
tion. For concurrency, 73% respondents replied yes, 19% no, and
8% were not aware. Similarly, for overlapping delays, 70% re-
spondents replied yes, 23% no, and 7% were not sure. Though
the concepts were there, no party was willing to perform realistic
assessments as previously stated. This is because of the fear of loss
and because there were no contractual provisions in the local in-
dustry for such delays and their assessment.
As expected, as many as 80% of the respondents had no idea
about float ownership. This primarily was because of lack of
clauses assigning float ownership in local contracting procedures.
As a result, float ownership became a matter of dispute in the con-
struction industry and added to delays. Only 9% of the respondents
knew about the float ownership. Since other parties were unaware
of this information, the 9% used the float to their advantage which
is a conflicting practice. The remaining 11% had no understanding
of float. This pointed to a serious lack of float ownership clauses in
local contract documents and practices as previously highlighted.
When asked about the perception of prolongation costs, the re-
ceived responses show a mixed trend. A total of 50% respondents
had ideas about prolongation of costs, 40% had no idea, whereas
10% were not aware of the term and its application. This high
amount of uncertainty about cost of prolongation made its assess-
ment more difficult and added to delays.
In the final section, respondents were asked about the events
causing EOT claims. Fig. 2 shows that the primary reason for such
claims was delay in payment to contractors, with a score of 23%,
followed by adverse weather conditions, change orders, and de-
layed site possession, with score of 18% each. As previously dis-
cussed, there were funding issues in the local construction industry
and the projects were almost certain to be affected by cash flow
problems at some stage. This problem grows exponentially in pub-
lic projects in which the volatile political and economic conditions
© ASCE 04517008-9
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1
constrained the projects (Ullah et al. 2016). The private industry
seemed to be doing well in this regard, as highlighted during
the interviews. Late payment not only led to EOT and delay claims,
but also added to the adversarial relationship between project stake-
holders, leading to distrust and information hiding. Finally, the re-
spondents were asked to highlight the EOT claims for different
project types. Fig. 3 shows that most of the EOT claims were as-
sociated with building projects, followed by roads and bridges, and,
last, in infrastructure projects. Key clauses were missing from the
local contractual documents regarding EOT claims, which made it a
highly exploitable area for the stakeholders. In this regard, other
advanced methods, such as involvement of consultants in planning
and execution phases as highlighted by Choudhry (2016), also
should be considered.
Conclusions
Realistic durations and schedules are extremely important for
proper delay analysis and progress tracking in construction proj-
ects. Assessment of available resources for projects is important
for preparation of realistic schedules. In this study, it is found that
construction schedules are usually not realistic and contract com-
pletion time is assigned tentatively. Moreover, schedules also were
not efficiently tracked and monitored for project progress, which
made matters worse as evident from the underperformance of
the construction industry. Extension of time claims rose because
of these unrealistic schedules. Performing delay analysis and con-
sidering the effect of concurrency of delays was important for real-
istic assessment of EOT and identification of critical or most
damaging delays. Delay analysis techniques were not used widely
in assessing EOT claims, which resulted in unrealistic assessments.
Of the delay events that resulted in EOT claims, payment to con-
tractors had the highest contribution.
Float ownerships and prolongation costs were other key issues
leading to increased EOT claims. Determining ownership of float at
the start of a project was important in avoiding disputes and time/
cost overrun. There was no such clause defining ownership of float
mechanism in contracts, which often resulted in claims and dis-
putes. Further, primarily in the cases of client-related delays, con-
tractors were not entitled to prolongation of cost. Entitlement of
contactor prolongation costs was important to avoid claims, dis-
putes, and overruns. The frequency of EOT claims occurred more
often in building projects than in roads and infrastructure projects.
Pakistani construction projects, like their global counterparts,
are prone to EOT claims primarily because of cash-flow issues that
result in delayed payments to contractors. Following these trends,
the observed schedules were neither realistic nor monitored for
project progress. Contract duration was assigned tentatively and
delay analysis was not performed. The law-and-order situation
in the country and lack of funds added to the miserable situation.
Also, contractors were not entitled to the prolongation costs, pri-
marily because of a lack of funds. Further, the ownership of float
was not determined because of a lack of knowledge about float-
related concepts and its assignments. Although PEC has taken steps
toward harmonizing and improving the local construction practices,
the implementation part is still missing. This added to the deterio-
rating situation of the local contract management and fueled the
EOT claims and disputes.
On the basis of the findings of this research, it is recommended
that viability and practicability of project schedule and tentatively
assigned contract duration should be discussed in prebid meetings.
A float ownership clause should be included in the contract,
which assigns the float available in noncritical activities to a party.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 To prepare a realistic schedule, assessment of available resources
should be made. Contractors are recommended to keep a well-
maintained record of events at the site to substantiate their EOT
and prolongation cost claims. Clients are recommended to ensure
timely payments of contractor’s bills to avoid disruption of work.
Consultants are recommended to use efficient delay analysis tech-
niques for making realistic assessment of EOT.
The findings have usefulness for both researchers and practi-
tioners. Researchers can explore the EOT assessment and respon-
sibility assignment tools and techniques, and compare the results
of current research with those obtained from the same study con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ducted for a developed country. The practitioners can benefit from
the guidelines and conclusions provided, and formulate a frame-
work for realistic and real-time assignment of EOT claims, avoid-
ing prolongation cost and assigning float ownership.
The current research was limited to assessment of the construc-
tion industry of Pakistan, which has basic understanding of EOT,
data availability, and archiving issues. The small number of local
experts also constrained the research. In the future, the study can be
repeated in a developed country with proper data banking and
larger numbers of experts to enhance the results and add more value
into the body of knowledge.
References
Works Cited
Abbas, A., Din, Z. U., and Farooqui, R. (2016). “Integration of BIM in
construction management education: An overview of Pakistani engi-
neering universities.” Procedia Eng., 145, 151–157.
Aibinu, A. (2009). “Avoiding and mitigating delay and disruption claims
conflict: Role of precontract negotiation.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut.
Eng. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1943-4162(2009)1:1(47), 47–58.
Aibinu, A. A., and Jagboro, G. O. (2002). “The effects of construction
delays on project delivery in Nigerian construction industry.” Int. J.
Project Manage., 20(8), 593–599.
Al-Gahtani, K. S., Al-Sulaihi, I. A., and Iqupal, A. (2016). “Total float man-
agement: Computerized technique for construction delay analysis.”
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 43(5), 391–401.
Alwee, S. N. A. S., Hashim, H., Maisham, M., Mahat, N. A. A., and
Ahmad, N. (2016). “Cost-related issues in Malaysian construction
contracts.” Proc., 2nd Int. Colloquium of Art and Design Education
Research (i-CADER 2015), Springer, Singapore, 473–485.
Ansari, W. S., Thaheem, M. J., and Khalfan, M. M. (2016). “Use of offsite
construction techniques in Pakistan.” Middle East J. Manage., 3(3),
218–229.
Anuar Othman, A., Victor Torrance, J., and Hamid, M. A. (2006). “Factors
influencing the construction time of civil engineering projects in
Malaysia.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage., 13(5), 481–501.
Arif, F., and Morad, A. A. (2013). “Concurrent delays in construction:
International legal perspective.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000134, 04513001.
Assaf, S. A., and Al-Hejji, S. (2006). “Causes of delay in large construction
projects.” Int. J. Project Manage., 24(4), 349–357.
Autodesk Revit 2017 [Computer software]. Autodesk Incorporation, San
Rafael, CA.
Aziz, R. F., and Abdel-Hakam, A. A. (2016). “Exploring delay causes
of road construction projects in Egypt.” Alexandria Eng. J., 55(2),
1515–1539.
Babar, S., Thaheem, M. J., and Ayub, B. (2016). “Estimated cost at com-
pletion: Integrating risk into earned value management.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001245, 04016104.
Bayraktar, M., Arif, F., Hastak, M., and Gad, N. (2012). “Judiciary’s use of
the critical path method to resolve construction claims.” J. Leg. Aff. Dis-
pute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000079,
10–16.
© ASCE 04517008-10
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1
Birgonul, M. T., Dikmen, I., and Bektas, S. (2014). “Integrated approach to
overcome shortcomings in current delay analysis practices.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000946, 04014088.
Callahan, M. T., Quackenbush, D. G., and Rowings, J. E. (1992). Construc-
tion project scheduling, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chen, Q., Jin, Z., Xia, B., Wu, P., and Skitmore, M. (2015). “Time and
cost performance of design-build projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001056, 04015074.
Choudhry, R. (2016). “Appointing the design consultant as supervision
consultant on construction projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut.
Eng. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000195, 04516005.
Choudhry, R., and Iqbal, K. (2013). “Identification of risk management
system in construction industry in Pakistan.” J. Manage. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000122, 42–49.
Choudhry, R. M., Aslam, M. A., Hinze, J. W., and Arain, F. M. (2014).
“Cost and schedule risk analysis of bridge construction in Pakistan:
Establishing risk guidelines.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000857, 04014020.
Dahal, K. R., and Rai, N. (2016). “Contract breach and payment for envi-
ronmental services: A case from the Kulekhani III hydroelectric project
in Nepal.” J. Water Energy Environ., 19, 38–44.
De La Garza, J., Vorster, M., and Parvin, C. (1991). “Total float traded as
commodity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(1991)117:4(716), 716–727.
Devore, J. L. (2015). Probability and statistics for engineering and the
sciences. Cengage Learning, Boston.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design
method. 2nd Ed., John Wiley Co., New York.
El-adaway, I., Fawzy, S., Ahmed, M., and White, R. (2016). “Administer-
ing extension of time under national and international standard forms of
contracts: A contractor’s perspective.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000182, 04516001.
El-Rayes, K., and Jun, D. (2009). “Optimizing resource leveling in con-
struction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0000097, 1172–1180.
El-Sayegh, S. M., and Rabie, M. M. (2016). “Modified price plus time bi-
parameter bidding model incorporating float loss impact.” Int. J. Constr.
Manage., 16(4), 1–14.
Farooqui, R. U., and Azhar, S. (2014). “Key causes of disputes in the
Pakistani construction industry-assessment of trends from the viewpoint
of contractors.” 50th Annual Int. Conf. of the Associated Schools of
Construction, Virginia Tech, Washington, DC, 26–28.
Farrow, T. (2007). “Developments in the analysis of extensions of time.”
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2007)
133:3(218), 218–228.
Fawzy, S. A., and El-adaway, I. H. (2013). “Time at large within the
common law legal system: Application to standard forms of contract.”
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943
-4170.0000124, 04513002.
Ford, D. (2002). “Achieving multiple project objectives through contin-
gency management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2002)128:1(30), 30–39.
Gardezi, S. S. S., Manarvi, I. A., and Gardezi, S. J. S. (2014). “Time ex-
tension factors in construction industry of Pakistan.” Procedia Eng., 77,
196–204.
Golparvar-Fard, M., Peña-Mora, F., and Savarese, S. (2011). “Integrated
sequential as-built and as-planned representation with D4AR tools in
support of decision-making tasks in the AEC/FM industry.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000371, 1099–1116.
Hanna, A. S., Nassereddine, H., and Swanson, J. R. (2016). “Proper risk
allocation: NDFD clause.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000208, 04516014.
Haseeb, M., Lu, X., Bibi, A., Dyian, M. U., and Rabbani, W. (2011). “Prob-
lems of projects and effects of delays in the construction industry of
Pakistan.” Aust. J. Bus. Manage. Res., 1(5), 41–50.
Hegazy, T., and Zhang, K. (2005). “Daily windows delay analysis.” J.
Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:5(505),
505–512.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Iyer, K., and Jha, K. (2006). “Critical factors affecting schedule perfor-
mance: Evidence from Indian construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:8(871), 871–881.
Kassab, M., Hipel, K., and Hegazy, T. (2006). “Conflict resolution in
construction disputes using the graph model.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:10(1043), 1043–1052.
Khamooshi, H., and Abdi, A. (2016). “Project duration forecasting using
earned duration management with exponential smoothing techniques.”
J. Manage. Eng., 04016032.
Larsen, J. K., Shen, G. Q., Lindhard, S. M., and Brunoe, T. D. (2015).
“Factors affecting schedule delay, cost overrun, and quality level in
public construction projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 03/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.1943-5479.0000391, 04015032.
Maqsoom, A., and Charoenngam, C. (2014). “Motives and competitive as-
sets of Pakistani international construction contracting firms: Impact
of size and international experience.” J. Financial Manage. Property
Constr., 19(2), 138–151.
Mehany, M. S. H. M., and Grigg, N. (2016). “Delay claims in road
construction: Best practices for a standard delay claims management
system.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 02516001.
Microsoft Project 2013 [Computer software]. Microsoft Corporation,
Redmond, WA.
Mubarak, S. A. (2015). Construction project scheduling and control,
3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Muhamad, N. H., Mohammad, M. F., Ahmad, A. C., and Ibrahim, I. H.
(2016). “Delay analysis methodologies (DAMs) in delivering quality
projects: Contractors and consultants’ perceptions.” Procedia-Social
Behav. Sci., 222, 121–131.
Ndekugri, I., Braimah, N., and Gameson, R. (2008). “Delay analysis within
construction contracting organizations.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:9(692), 692–700.
Nguyen, L., and Ibbs, W. (2008). “FLORA: New forensic schedule analysis
technique.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2008)134:7(483), 483–491.
Noor, M. A., Khalfan, M. M., and Maqsood, T. (2012). “Methods used
to procure infrastructure projects in Pakistan: An overview.” Int. J.
Procurement Manage., 5(6), 733–752.
Odeh, A. M., and Battaineh, H. T. (2002). “Causes of construction delay:
Traditional contracts.” Int. J. Project Manage., 20(1), 67–73.
PEC (Pakistan Engineering Council). (2007). “Standard form of bidding
documents (civil works).” 〈http://www.pec.org.pk/downloads/PEC
_Bidding_Docs/4mPICC/(1)%20Std%20Form%20of%20Bidding%20
Docs%20(Civil%20%20Work).doc〉 (Sep. 12, 2016).
© ASCE 04517008-11
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., -1--1
PEC (Pakistan Engineering Council). (2016). “Service Structure of Engi-
neers.” PEC headquarters, Islamabad, Pakistan” 〈http://www.pec.org
.pk/downloads/Service%20Structure%20of%20Engineers%20-20Final
%20on%201st%20Nov%202016.pdf〉 (Sep. 14, 2016).
Perera, N. A., Sutrisna, M., and Yiu, T. W. (2016). “Decision-making
model for selecting the optimum method of delay analysis in con-
struction projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000441, 04016009.
Pishdad-Bozorgi, P., de la Garza, J. M., and Austin, R. B. (2016). “Read-
iness assessment for flash tracking.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001190, 06016005.
Primavera P6 v.8.2 [Computer software]. Oracle Corporation, Redwood
City, CA.
Razzaq, A., Thaheem, M. J., Maqsoom, A., and Gabriel, H. F. (2016).
“Critical external risks in international joint ventures for construction
industry in Pakistan”. Int. J. Civ. Eng., 1–17.
Shash, A. A., and Abdul-Hadi, N. H. (1993). “The effect of contractor
size on mark-up size decision in Saudi Arabia.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
11(6), 421–429.
Siddiqui, S. Q., Ullah, F., Thaheem, M. J., and Gabriel, H. F. (2016). “Six
Sigma in construction: A review of critical success factors.” Int. J. Lean
Six Sigma, 7(2), 171–186.
Siu, M. F. F., Lu, M., AbouRizk, S., and Tidder, V. (2016). “Quantitative
assessment of budget sufficiency and resource utilization for resource-
constrained project schedules.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001106, 04016003.
Society of Construction Law. (2002). “The Society of construction law de-
lay and disruption protocol.” 〈https://www.scl.org.uk/〉 (Sep. 12, 2016).
SPSS v8 [Computer software]. IBM, Armonk, NY.
Tibaut, A., Rebolj, D., and Perc, M. N. (2016). “Interoperability require-
ments for automated manufacturing systems in construction.” J. Intell.
Manuf., 27(1), 251–262.
Trauner, T. J. (2009). Construction delays: Understanding them
clearly, analyzing them correctly, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,
U.K.
Ullah, F., Ayub, B., Siddiqui, S. Q., and Thaheem, M. J. (2016). “A review
of public-private partnership: critical factors of concession period.”
J. Financial Manage. Property Constr., 21(3), 269–300.
Vasilyeva-Lyulina, A., Onishi, M., and Kobayashi, K. (2015). “Delay
analysis methods for construction projects: Mathematical modelling.”
Int. J. Transp., 3(1), 27–36.
Williams, T. (2003). “Assessing extension of time delays on major
projects.” Int. J. Project Manage., 21(1), 19–26.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.