The Approved Baseline Programme and Delay Analysis

A recurring issue in determining Extension of Time entitlement is that the current baseline programme was not accepted by the Employer.

An approved baseline becomes a critical reference for delay analysis and extension-of-time (EOT) claims.

Without an approved baseline, both parties lack a fair and transparent tool for resolving potential disputes.

The Employer might not approve a submitted baseline programme to avoid committing to a document that could later be used against them. Other reasons why an approved baseline may not be accepted by the Employer might include:

• Different Goals:

  Contractors want a plan that works in real life, but employers often care most about sticking to budgets, deadlines, and rules. Sometimes, contractors point out risks or problems that employers don’t want to deal with.

• Unclear Project Details

  The schedule can show that some parts of the project aren’t fully defined. Employers may refuse to approve the baseline programme until everything is clear, worried that missing details could cause arguments later.

• Unrealistic Demands

  Employers sometimes expect the project to be finished faster or with fewer resources than is possible. If the schedule doesn’t match these expectations, it might get rejected.

• Too Many Reviews

  Some employers have complicated approval processes with lots of people involved, which can lead to mixed feedback and delays. This slows down the project and causes confusion early on.

• Programme errors

  Sometimes contractors submit programmes that aren’t good enough or don’t meet contract standards. Employers reject these, which damages trust and can cause delays.

• Project Changes

  Projects often change before the schedule is finalized, making employers hesitant to approve something that might already be outdated. Constant changes delay approval and keep the project in a state of “limbo”.

• Lack of Trust

  Past disagreements or poor communication can make employers suspicious, leading them to over-check the schedule. This makes collaboration harder and slows down approval.

What is the Baseline is Unapproved?

Whilst it is preferred that a current baseline programme is accepted by the Employer, an unapproved of rejected baseline programme does not relieve the Contractor of its duty to produce programme updates or demonstrate delay to the Employer, as per the typical conditions of contract.  

Even if the baseline programme is rejected, it can still be used in the analysis of delay. The SCL Protocol recommends that delay analysis should be carried out on the most up to date critical path programme available. This is common-sense, as there is little point in attempting to demonstrate delay on an irrelevant out of date programme that does not represent the realist planned intent.

If a baseline programme does not exist or is inadequate, there is nothing that precludes the Contractor or Delay Expert from re-creating a baseline programme that accurately reflects the planned intent later.

How Do Tribunals and Courts Regard an Unapproved Baseline?

Tribunals and courts do not disregard a baseline programme or programme(s) because they were rejected by the Employer.

This is demonstrated in Saga Cruises v Fincantieri [2018]. The court recognised that a programme is a key tool for showing the planned sequence and timing of project activities. And even if a programme is not formally approved by both parties, it can still be used to analyse delays and determine responsibility.

The Employer’s act of rejecting an EOT claim due an unaccepted programme without justifiable reason constitutes an act of prevention by the Employer.  

---

In Conclusion

From a delay expert’s perspective, the absence of an approved baseline programme is rarely fatal to a proper delay analysis.

What matters is whether the programme relied upon credibly represents the contractor’s planned intent and the contemporaneous reality of the works. Tribunals consistently focus on logic, evidence and critical path causation, not labels of approval. Where necessary, a baseline can be reconstructed. Delay analysis succeeds on substance, not form, and prevention arguments arise where approval is unreasonably withheld.

---

At Accura Consulting, our team of experts work with clients to create a tailored solution to problems. If you have an issue and want expert support, get in touch.

---

Back to News and Insights

Related News and
Insights from Accura