Extension of Time, Interim Certification and Unpaid Fees on One Project
An architect is appointed under the SLIA Conditions of Engagement for a 14-month contract to build a 2,500 m² office in Rajagiriya, administered under a standard ICTAD/SLIA form of contract. The contractor claims 45 days of extension of time, citing abnormal rain. The architect's site diary records 18 rain days that exceeded the contract's stated daily rainfall threshold, but the approved baseline programme was already 20 days behind because the architect issued the piling drawings 18 days late. The client, who has not paid the architect's Stage 4 fee of LKR 2.4 million for four months, instructs the architect in writing to reject the extension claim in full and to certify the contractor's next interim payment without deduction because the contractor needs cash flow. The interim application includes 120 m³ of concrete that the clerk of works has recorded as not yet poured.
1. How would you determine the extension of time claim?
Read the worked answer
Assess it against the contract mechanism, not against either party's preference.
First, the qualifying event. The contract defines the weather threshold; only the 18 recorded days that exceed it are candidates, and they should be corroborated with Meteorological Department records for the nearest station rather than the diary alone.
Second, criticality. An extension is only due where the event actually delayed completion. Test the 18 days against the approved programme and the updated programme to see whether rain fell on critical activities.
Third, the architect's own delay. Issuing the piling drawings 18 days late is the client's risk under the contract, and the contractor is entitled to time for it. Ignoring it would make the determination dishonest and would be indefensible in adjudication.
Fourth, concurrency. Where rain and the late drawings overlap, most standard forms give time but limit or exclude prolongation cost for the concurrent period. The likeliest outcome here is a determination of roughly 20 days rather than 45, with reasons set out activity by activity and a revised completion date stated.
Finally, the client's instruction to reject in full has no contractual effect on the determination. Record it on file, answer it in writing explaining the basis of the assessment, and issue the determination with the revised completion date and the associated cost decision stated separately.
2. How should the architect respond to the instruction to certify the interim payment without deduction?
Read the worked answer
The interim certificate is the architect's professional valuation, not an instruction from the client to transfer money.
On the concrete: 120 m³ recorded by the clerk of works as not poured cannot be valued, whatever the cash-flow pressure. Certifying it would mean certifying work that does not exist. That is a breach of the construction contract, an exposure to a negligence claim from the contractor or the client, and a matter the SLIA disciplinary process takes seriously.
On the instruction itself, respond in writing and promptly, doing three things:
- Acknowledge the instruction and record that it has been received and that you are unable to act on it, with the two reasons: the uncertified concrete and the absence of any contractual basis for overriding the valuation.
- Explain the lawful alternative. If the client wishes to help the contractor's cash flow, the proper route is a separately documented advance or loan between client and contractor, or prompt valuation and issue of the next certificate for work genuinely executed, not a false entry in the certificate.
- Confirm what you will do: value only measured work and materials properly on site, issue the certificate, and copy the valuation build-up to both parties so the position is transparent.
Keep the client's written instruction on the project file. Do not act on it, and do not treat the exchange as private.
3. Can the unpaid fee responsibly influence the architect's willingness to certify?
Read the worked answer
No, and the two issues should be kept in strictly separate correspondence.
The fee is owed under the client–architect agreement. The obligation to certify arises under the construction contract, and in part it is owed to the contractor and to third parties who rely on the certificate. Using the certificate as leverage would be an abuse of a professional function, and the SLIA Conditions of Engagement do not give a lien over certification.
The proper responses to non-payment are contractual:
- Issue a written reminder and a formal notice under the Conditions, claiming interest on late payment if the Conditions provide for it.
- After the contractual notice period, suspend services by written notice, stating the date of suspension and what will not be done.
- Refer the dispute to mediation or arbitration as the Conditions provide, and keep the claim documented with invoices, stage completion evidence and correspondence.
- Even during suspension, do not abandon duties that affect safety or statutory compliance; arrange a handover or continued limited service if the works are live.
Tell the client plainly, in a separate letter from the certification letter, that the fee is outstanding and what the contractual consequences will be. Linking the two in one document is what creates the appearance of a trade, and that appearance is as damaging as the act itself.