An award is a number of weeks. What makes it defensible two years later is the sentence explaining how the number was reached, and that sentence is almost never written down.
A relevant event under clause 2.29 can carry an extension of time. A relevant matter under clause 4.21 can carry loss and expense. The lists overlap heavily, which is why they get treated as one list, and they are not.
Exceptionally adverse weather is the clearest case. It is a relevant event and not a relevant matter, so it buys relief from liquidated damages and nothing else. QScope knows which is which, and says so at the point the claim is entered.
A claim that has been notified but not decided extends nothing. The extension exists once it is granted, and until then the original completion date stands and damages continue to run against it.
QScope keeps notified, under assessment, awarded and rejected as separate states, and only the awarded weeks reach the revised completion date. Nothing moves because a claim was made loudly.
An extension of time is argued after the event. The programme is where the overrun is visible while it is still happening, which is the point at which a notice has to be served if the entitlement is to survive.
QScope draws the works against the contract period with today marked, so the overrun that supports the claim is a matter of record rather than reconstruction.
An extension of time buys relief from liquidated damages. It does not, by itself, pay for the cost of being on site longer. That money is loss and expense, and it needs a relevant matter under clause 4.21, not merely a relevant event under clause 2.29.
QScope links each head of claim to the delay event that caused it, and warns where the event carries time only. The two entitlements are assessed separately because they are separate.
The reason an extension matters in money is the completion date it moves. Damages run against that date, and a week of extension is a week the employer can no longer deduct at the liquidated rate.
QScope calculates damages from the completion date after any award, applies any cap, and refuses to let the figure stand while no certificate of non-completion is on the register.
No, and it should not. The assessment is a judgement made by a named person under the contract. QScope holds the dates, the claim, the award and the reasoning, and does the arithmetic that follows from your decision.
The list follows the JCT standard forms. Where you are working under an amended contract or a different form, the categories still work as a way of classifying the cause, and the clause numbering will differ.
It is cancelled and has to be reissued against the new completion date. QScope flags any damages calculation where no valid certificate is on the register.
Yes, and that is the point of linking them. The heads of claim live in the loss and expense register and each one points back at the event that caused it.
Not your whole portfolio. One live job, one certificate. If it does not save you time the first time you use it, walk away and take your data with you.