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
We're expanding our collaborative mission by launching DB Intelligence, an exclusive market research advisory panel. Built environment professionals can now get paid to share their expertise on industry trends, products and services.
Panel members receive direct financial incentives for participating in research projects like short surveys, 1-2-1 interviews and focus groups. Register today to shape the future of the construction sector.
Building Control Independent Panel final report
A precis of a key report led by Dame Hackitt with full recommendations and link to the government response.
Guide to ISO 19650 for Architecture Firms (2026)
A user gives their low down.
A UK training and membership provider for mould remediation professionals.
Building Safety recap April, 2026
A short and longer run-through of the month, with links to further information and sources.
CIAT May 2026 briefing.
Independent NSI and BAFE study exploring how organisations are changing the way they buy fire safety services.
From medieval scribes to modern word art.
ECA welcomes crackdown on late payment and push for clean energy, whilst CIOB seek fixed cladding removal timeframes.
Cyber Security in the Built Environment
Protecting projects, data, and digital assets: A CIOB Academy TIS.
Managing competence in the built environment
ITFG publishes new industry guide on how to meet the ICC principles.
The UK's campaign to reduce noise pollution: Mythbusting, articles and topic guides.

















