Pourquoi 90% des plannings ne tiennent pas contractuellement

In the large projects industry - particularly in an EPC environment - scheduling is ubiquitous.
It structures execution, aligns teams, drives performance.

And yet.

When a project goes off track, deadlines are missed, and responsibilities need to be established…
the vast majority of plans become unenforceable contractually.

Not because they are technically false.
But because they were never designed to be defended.

1. The fundamental misunderstanding: piloting vs proving

An operational plan is designed to:

• to organise the work

• coordinate the interfaces

• optimise the sequences

A contractual schedule, on the other hand, must allow for:

• demonstrate a credible critical path

• to establish a causal link between an event and an impact

• justify an extension of time (EOT) entitlement

• withstand a contrary analysis

However, in the majority of projects, this distinction is never made.

The programme is nevertheless a key contractual requirement, particularly in FIDIC contracts (Clause 8.3).

But in practice, it is treated as a mere management tool.

Direct consequence:
The day the schedule has to serve as proof... it fails.

2. A network logic that is often indefensible

A contractually robust schedule relies on impeccable network logic.

In practice, it is regularly observed:

• activities with no predecessors or successors (open ends)

• excessive use of “hard” constraints to force deadlines

• unexplained lag

• unstable or artificial critical paths

These defects are sometimes tolerated during the execution phase.
They become prohibitive during the claims phase.

Why?

Because all delay analysis rests on a key assumption:
The critical path must be credible and demonstrable.

If logic is contestable, then:

• The impact of delays is questionable

• The responsibility is questionable

• The claim collapses

3. The absence of a clear contractual baseline

Another major weakness lies in the management of baselines.

Too often

• the versions are not formally approved

• The developments are not tracked

• several “references” coexist without a clear hierarchy

Or, any analysis of delay begins with a simple question:

What is the enforceable contractual baseline?

Without a clear answer:

• no deviation can be reliably measured

• no blame can be attributed

• No claim can be soundly constructed.

In other words, without a robust baseline,
The schedule loses its legal value.

4. A disconnect between planning and contract

In many projects, the schedule is drawn up independently of the contract.

It reflects:

• a technical logic

• production constraints

• organisational choices

But it doesn't always translate:

• contractual milestones

• sequence obligations

• the conditions for access to or submission of works

• extension mechanisms

This disconnection is critical.

Because in a dispute situation, it is not technical logic that prevails,
but The contractual interpretation of time.

A schedule not aligned with the contract cannot support a legal position.

5. An untraceable and unenforceable advance

Progress tracking is often the most fragile point.

We frequently observe:

• subjective percentages

• non-uniform measurement rules

• post-hoc corrections

• a lack of traceability for updates

During a dispute, these practices are immediately attacked.

The question then becomes:

On what objective basis was this advancement measured?

If the answer is not clear and documented:

• the data is rejected

• The analysis is discredited.

• The contractual position is weakened

6. A lack of knowledge of reference standards

Delay analysis cannot be improvised.

It is based on recognised reference frameworks such as:

• The SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol

• AACE International Recommended Practice 29R-03

These standards define:

• analysis methods (TIA, Windows, As-Planned vs As-Built...)

• terms of use

• the limitations and biases of each approach

Without mastery of these frameworks:

• The chosen methodology is questionable

• The conclusions are fragile

• The expert's credibility is being called into question

7. Inadequate management of competitive delays

In complex projects, several delays often coexist:

• Client delays

• contractor delays

• batch interference

• External constraints

The concept of concurrency is then central.

Yet, it is rarely treated correctly:

• Lack of fine-grained temporal analysis

• Confusion between excusable and inexcusable delays

• Lack of clear responsibilities

Or, without this analysis:

• No allocation of responsibility is possible

• no right to compensation can be robustly established

8. A lack of narrative and justification

Ultimately, a timetable alone is never enough.

To be defensible, it must be accompanied by:

• Methodological notes

• explicit hypotheses

• justified choices

• documented analyses

Without this narration:
The schedule remains a technical representation.

With her:
it becomes one Structured and defensible argument.

Conclusion — Time as a Contractual Asset

A planning document is not contractually binding when it cannot:

• demonstrate a clear link between cause and effect

• withstand a contrary analysis

• to be independently audited

In complex EPC environments,
Time is not just a steering variable.

It's a Contractual employee.

And like any asset, it must be structured, secured and defended.

Strategic positioning

Organisations that perform well are not those that produce the most plans.

These are the ones that produce schedules:

• legally actionable

• methodologically robust

• strategically aligned with their contractual interests

It is precisely in this gap that value is created.

ALVID Consulting
Clarity in Complexity — Turning schedules into contractual evidence.