Q26020 · Ecospec EOT Draft for discussion
Chapter 1 · The story

Ecospec want 2½ to 5½ more months. Most of that is one “Shared Contingency” activity and their own late work.

Hazell Bros (HB) gave Ecospec five bridges, with 6 months to finish each one. Their latest programme (Rev J.3) finishes months late, and they're claiming the difference as EOT. Take out their “Shared Contingency” (one activity with no work in it) and the work actually finishes much earlier. Most of what's left is their original scope running late.

The key finding
Ecospec never put a single day of delay down to themselves.

Every time their work ran late, they added another EOT on the end, about the same size as the slip, and gave it a variation number. Their “Shared Contingency” never got used. None of the EOTs are linked to any variation work in the programme, and one of them (“VO12”) is just their own unfinished work.

What matters is how far a variation actually pushes out the finish, not how late the job is or how long the variation took. The subcontract only gives time for delay on the critical path. On that test, the variation work pushes each finish out by:

SP3 · ID648~102 wdclaimed22 wdactually caused by variation work
SP4 · ID650~43 wdclaimed9 wdactually caused by variation work
SP5 · ID649~83 wdclaimed0 wdactually caused by variation work

Based on all 11 of Ecospec's programmes and their EOT Register. Their EOT notices and letters haven't been seen yet.

Bars
WorkVariation work pushing out the finish (possible claim)“Shared Contingency” (one activity, no work)Taken back by HB
Lines and markers
Data dateContract 6-month date (23/09/2026)Ecospec's own 6-month dateRevF completion
Real workEcospec's own lateness“Shared Contingency” (one activity, no work)Ecospec may have a pointHelps HBNot proven yet

How it got here

Mar–Apr 2026
Five bridges, 6 months each
Subcontract signed 15/04. ID663, ID661, ID648, ID650 and ID649, each due 6 months from commencement.
May–Sep 2026
Original scope falls behind
Same small crew moves between areas without finishing them (your 23/10 email). Some abutments took 2–4× their tender span.
Jun–Oct 2026
Variations added
18 HB variations, all approved with no extra days. Ecospec did most of the work in the same visit as the original scope.
Revisions G.8 → J.3
“Shared Contingency” and EOTs added
Each new programme adds contingency and EOT days before completion. The completion date is no longer driven by the work.
Now
HB took 2 bridges back
HB is doing ID661 and ID663 itself. Ecospec has ID648, ID650 and ID649. None is finished, no EOT is approved, and LDs are $2,548/day per bridge.

What's inside Ecospec's EOT claim

Working days between Ecospec's own 6-month date and their completion date. Click a row to show that bridge on the map.

Original scope running late (their own lateness)Variation work pushing out the finish (possible claim)“Shared Contingency” (one activity, no work)

Is it easy to prove?

Their completion date hangs off the contingency, not the workIn Ecospec's own programme, completion is only linked to the contingency and the EOTs.
Strong
Most of the slip is original scopeShown by the programmes and RevF. At 30/09, ID648 had done 18 of 67 RevF activities.
Strong
Variations gave no extra timeHB says so, and the programmes back it up. HB's VO approval records would settle it.
Likely
Days on site, notices, the 6-month dateNo diaries or EOT notices yet. Which 6-month date applies is HB's call.
Not yet
In short: Ecospec's own files show the claim is mostly one “Shared Contingency” activity and late original scope. About 22 wd (ID648) and 9 wd (ID650) of variation work could still be argued. Whether any EOT stands is HB's call.

Observations of Ecospec's submitted programmes (Rev J.3, status 30/09/2026), Ecospec's EOT Register and the subcontract. Not an entitlement assessment and not an MS Project reschedule. Working days (wd) on the programme's Standard calendar. Luke Charet, Plan A Project Planning, 26/10/2026.