Concurrent Delay
Two delays running at the same time, one at the employer’s risk and one at the contractor’s, each independently capable of delaying completion. It is the most contested concept in delay analysis, and the answer depends heavily on the contract and the jurisdiction.
The classic outcome under the SCL Protocol’s approach is that the contractor gets time but not money: an extension of time, because an employer-risk event did delay completion — but no prolongation cost, because the contractor would have been delayed anyway by its own concurrent culpable delay. Time without money.
That is a default, not a law. Contracts increasingly draft around it explicitly, and jurisdictions differ. What does not differ is the evidential requirement: to argue concurrency at all, you need day-by-day records showing what was actually driving the completion date at each point — which is the same contemporaneous record that everything else in a delay claim rests on.
Go deeper