Prolongation in construction contracts
As per the definition contained in the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol the term ‘prolongation’ refers to 'the extended duration of the works during which time-related costs are incurred as a result of a delay' - usually recognised as the additional projected time required to complete a contract extending beyond the contractual completion date.
Prolongation costs are the additional costs that a contractor has incurred as a result of the completion of the works being delayed by an event that is the responsibility of the other party (usually the Employer). Such events might include; failing to give the contractor possession of the site on the date specified in the contract; delays in giving instructions, and so on.
The contractor may incur additional costs as a result of having to remain on site for longer than anticipated, for example, additional labour costs, plant costs, off-site overheads, fluctuations, and so on.
Prolongation is sometimes described as being synonymous with ‘loss and expense’, however, this is incorrect. Loss and expense is a wider term that refers to matters which are the responsibility of the client that materially affect the progress of the works. This includes matters that disrupt, rather than delay the progress of the works, but still entitle the contractor to make a claim for additional costs incurred. Claims for disruption result from the additional cost of adopting inefficient working methods as a result of the disruption.
For more information, see Disruption claims in construction.
Prolongation and disruption therefore are two separate elements that might result in a claim for loss and expense. The prolongation element is dependent on the completion date being delayed.
Depending on the terms of the construction contract, prolongation might relate to the project as a whole, or to a specific aspect of it.
Generally a disruption event is easier to prove than a critical delay prolongation event i.e. a failed critical delay prolongation claim will often be used as proof of disruption. However, prolongation costs are often considered easier to demonstrate than disruption costs.
For more information see: Loss and expense.
[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
Featured articles and news
HSE simplified advice for installers of stone worktops
After company fined for repeatedly failing to protect workers.
Co-located with 10th year of UK Construction Week.
How orchards can influence planning and development.
Time for knapping, no time for napping
Decorative split stone square patterns in facades.
A practical guide to the use of flint in design and architecture.
Designing for neurodiversity: driving change for the better
Accessible inclusive design translated into reality.
RIBA detailed response to Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 report
Briefing notes following its initial 4 September response.
Approved Document B: Fire Safety from March
Current and future changes with historical documentation.
A New Year, a new look for BSRIA
As phase 1 of the BSRIA Living Laboratory is completed.
A must-attend event for the architecture industry.
Caroline Gumble to step down as CIOB CEO in 2025
After transformative tenure take on a leadership role within the engineering sector.
RIDDOR and the provisional statistics for 2023 / 2024
Work related deaths; over 50 percent from construction and 50 percent recorded as fall from height.
Solar PV company fined for health and safety failure
Work at height not properly planned and failure to take suitable steps to prevent a fall.
The term value when assessing the viability of developments
Consultation on the compulsory purchase process, compensation reforms and potential removal of hope value.
Trees are part of the history of how places have developed.