Views in the last 30 days: 276
Estimated read time: 36 minute(s)
Construction projects around the world often rely on standard-form contracts to define the roles, risks, and processes for delivering the work. Three of the most popular contract suites are FIDIC, NEC, and JCT – each with its own philosophy and approach. If you’ve managed projects internationally, you’ve likely heard of FIDIC and NEC and JCT forms. In this blog, we’ll compare these contracts in a conversational, accessible way, focusing on key aspects like contract structure, risk allocation, dispute resolution, payments, and programme & time. We’ll also sprinkle in real-world examples from different regions to illustrate how these contracts operate in practice. Let’s dive in!
FIDIC vs NEC vs JCT Quiz
Test your knowledge of FIDIC, NEC, and JCT contracts. Choose the option that you think is correct, and then click the “Show Answer” button to reveal the correct answer and explanation.
Question 1:
Which contract suite is internationally recognized for dividing its content into General Conditions and Particular Conditions?
Question 2:
Which contract is known for its plain-English language, modular structure, and emphasis on collaboration via Early Warning processes?
Question 3:
Which contract is most widely used by UK construction professionals and typically features shorter interim payment periods?
Question 4:
Which contract suite typically employs a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) to resolve issues promptly during the project?
Question 5:
Under which contract does the concept of “compensation events” directly update both the project’s cost and program when changes occur?
Question 6:
Which contract places a strong emphasis on actively updating the program throughout the project, with penalties if updates are not submitted?
Question 7:
In a JCT contract, who is typically responsible for performing the valuation and issuing interim payment certificates?
Question 8:
Which contract allocates risk by assigning it to the party best able to manage it and offers different versions (eg, Red, Yellow, Silver) to customize risk allocation?
Question 9:
Which contract suite features a dispute resolution mechanism that usually starts with quick adjudication under statutory schemes?
Question 10:
For international infrastructure projects financed by multinational development banks, which contract suite is most commonly recommended?
Contract Structure: FIDIC vs NEC vs JCT 🎨
FIDIC Structure. FIDIC contracts (the well-known Red, Yellow, Silver Books) follow a two-part format: General Conditions (standard clauses) and Particular Conditions (project-specific data/amendments). The 1999 “Rainbow Suite” uses a 20-clause architecture spanning general provisions, roles (including the Engineer), risk, payments, and claims. Language leans formal (“shall”, “may”). Typically, you’ll see an Agreement section (contract particulars), then the Conditions, followed by project-specific Schedules. FIDIC is internationally recognized (including by many MDBs), designed to be comprehensive yet adaptable.
• Decision process / determinations → Clause 3.7 (1999 vs 2017)
• Variations (procedure) → Clause 13.3 (2017), Clause 13.1 (1999)
• Payments overview → Interim Payment Certificates, Schedule of Payments
• Taking-Over (TOC) → Clause 10.1
• Defects/DNP → Clause 11.1
• Claims/DAAB/Arbitration → Clause 20 overview
• Golden Principles → Designing fair contracts
NEC Structure. The NEC suite takes a different route: plain English, present tense, and modular. An NEC contract (e.g., NEC4 ECC) is assembled from Core Clauses plus Optional Clauses labeled by letters (payment options, dispute mechanisms, etc.), and “Z clauses” for bespoke terms. The emphasis is on clarity and proactive management rather than legal formality. A hallmark is the duty to act “in a spirit of mutual trust and co-operation,” which reinforces collaborative behaviors among the parties (Project Manager, Supervisor, Contractor). Selecting the right options lets you tailor NEC for lump sum, target cost, or other commercial strategies—so it often feels like a project management tool as much as a contract.
JCT Structure. JCT is the most traditional in layout: an Agreement with contract particulars, then Conditions divided into sections, plus Schedules/appendices where relevant. It uses formal but clear drafting (“shall”, “may”) and relies on a Contract Administrator (or Architect/Engineer) to manage the contract. Rooted in the UK (since 1931), the suite aligns to UK statutory frameworks (e.g., Construction Act payment/adjudication). JCT’s aim to “cover all eventualities” yields detailed procedures—great for certainty, though sometimes rigid unless amended. Many JCT forms are lump-sum by default.
Which form might fit my project?
Risk Allocation — At a Glance
Use the tabs to explore each contract philosophy. Adjust the slider to visualize how risk might be shared on your project.
Philosophy
Balanced allocation to the party best able to control the risk, with explicit clauses identifying responsibility and relief (time & money) when Employer-allocated risks occur.
1999 uses “Force Majeure” (Clause 19); 2017 reframes as “Exceptional Events”.
Signature Features
- Clear risk lists (e.g., Employer’s risks 17.3, Unforeseeable conditions 4.12).
- Relief routes: EOT, cost, or both via Claims & Determinations (Clause 3.7).
- Book forms for different risk profiles: Red (employer-design), Yellow (design-build), Silver (EPC/Turnkey).
Your Original Content (enhanced)
FIDIC’s Balanced Risk Approach: FIDIC contracts are built on the principle of allocating risks to the party “best able to control” those risks. The intent is a fair allocation – neither party should carry all the burden unfairly. For example, under the FIDIC Red Book (construction contract), the Employer typically bears the risk of unforeseen ground conditions or changes in law, because the Employer often has more control or knowledge of those factors, whereas the Contractor bears risks related to construction means and methods. The FIDIC suite even offers different forms for different risk profiles: the Silver Book (EPC/Turnkey) puts more risk on the contractor (suitable for when the contractor is paid a premium to take on unknowns), while the Red Book (Employer-designed works) shares risk more evenly, and the Yellow Book (Design-Build) sits in between.
In all cases, FIDIC provides mechanisms for contractors to claim time and money if certain risks materialize (like unforeseeable conditions, force majeure/exceptional events, etc.), but often with strict notice requirements. In practice, FIDIC’s approach means if something goes wrong, the contract has a clause identifying who is responsible. This clarity can still lead to claims (e.g., a contractor will file a claim for an extension of time and costs if a risk allocated to the Employer – like unexpected archaeological finds – occurs). The key is that FIDIC tries to be explicit upfront about major risks and their allocation.
Practical Tips
- Write a risk register at tender and keep it live through delivery. (For underground works, see how to build a contract risk register.)
- Map risks to clauses: conditions, law changes, fossils, delay damages, determinations. Start with 17.3, 4.12, 8.7, 3.7.
- Define thresholds for weather/ground risks and data quality; clarify time & cost consequences.
Real-World Example – Risk Allocation: Imagine an unforeseen ground condition (like archaeological ruins) is discovered during excavation. Under a FIDIC Red Book contract, this would likely be considered an unforeseeable physical condition, and the Contractor could claim additional time and cost – the risk is shared (Employer bears the risk of the unforeseen condition, Contractor gets relief) as long as proper notice is given. Under an NEC contract, the team would have ideally flagged ground risk early and perhaps included it in the risk register; the discovery would be a compensation event if truly unforeseen, and everyone would collaborate on a solution while the contract adjusts the completion date and price accordingly. Under a JCT contract, there is no specific clause for unforeseen ground conditions; it might become a variation or trigger the contractual claims clause, but if not clearly Employer’s responsibility, the Contractor might end up bearing some cost or seeking relief through a claim for loss/expense (which could be contentious). This simple scenario shows how FIDIC leans on clear predefined allocation, NEC leans on cooperation and adjustment, and JCT leans on predefined terms and potential claims if something unusual happens.
Dispute Resolution: FIDIC vs NEC vs JCT 🎨
FIDIC – Dispute Boards and Arbitration. FIDIC uses a multi-tier pathway designed for speed and expertise on international projects. A Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB)—called a Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB) in the 2017 editions—is typically 1 or 3 independent experts appointed at the start. They stay familiar with the contract and can decide disputes quickly (often within about 84 days for formal decisions). Those decisions are binding in the interim—parties must comply—while retaining the right to escalate later. After a DA(B) decision, contracts usually require an amicable settlement attempt before final arbitration (commonly ICC or similar).
• Claims to DAAB to Arbitration (comparative) → Clause 20 overview
• Amicable settlement mechanics → Clause 20.5 vs 21.3
• Arbitration checklists & routes → Arbitration checklist
NEC – Adjudication (& Avoidance) with a Partnering Spirit. NEC (rooted in the UK) relies on statutory adjudication as the fast-track forum—typically a 28-day decision by an independent adjudicator, binding unless/until overturned later. NEC4 ECC selects dispute options by letter: W1 (where the UK Construction Act doesn’t apply) or W2 (where it does). NEC4 also introduced W3, an optional Dispute Avoidance Board for projects not mandated to adjudicate, echoing FIDIC’s standing board concept. NEC’s early warnings, compensation events, and collaborative duties aim to prevent disputes from escalating.
JCT – Adjudication + Traditional Final Forum. JCT embeds the UK right to adjudication at any time. Adjudicators decide in about 28 days, providing a quick, temporarily binding outcome that keeps cash and works flowing. For final resolution, JCT forms usually offer a choice: Arbitration (often by opting in) or Litigation (Technology & Construction Court) if arbitration isn’t selected. There’s no standing dispute board by default—JCT is more reactive: deal normally, adjudicate when needed, then (if necessary) proceed to arbitration/court for a final determination.
Which dispute route fits my project?
Quick check: have you got the basics?
Payments in FIDIC, NEC & JCT — What Really Changes Your Cash Flow?
Money is the lifeblood of construction. Here’s a practical, interactive walk-through of how payment mechanisms differ — and how that plays out on site.
FIDIC Payment Terms — Original text (your content)
Money is the lifeblood of construction, so how each contract handles payments and financial matters is a big deal. Let’s compare FIDIC, NEC, and JCT on payment terms:
FIDIC Payment Terms: FIDIC contracts typically involve a periodic payment system (often monthly interim payments) administered by the Engineer. In a FIDIC Red or Yellow Book scenario, the Contractor submits a monthly statement of the work done (and any other amounts due, like variations or claims) to the Engineer. The Engineer then reviews and issues an Interim Payment Certificate (IPC) certifying the amount due. One notable point is the timeline: the Employer must pay within 56 days after the Engineer receives the Contractor’s statement (for interim payments). This 56-day payment cycle in FIDIC is longer than typical UK practice, reflecting that on international projects, cash flow timelines are sometimes extended (and also giving the Engineer time to do detailed valuations). Contractors need to be aware of this and plan accordingly – delayed payment is built into the contract, and late payment beyond that can trigger financing charges or even grounds to suspend work if severe (FIDIC allows suspension or termination if the employer fails to pay certified amounts within a certain grace period). FIDIC also usually includes provisions for an advance payment (mobilization funding at the start, against a bond) and retention (deducting a percentage of each payment up to a limit, released at completion stages). Variations (changes) under FIDIC are priced by the Engineer using contract rates or new rates if needed, and those get added into payment certificates as well. The payment process is formal: IPCs, then the Employer pays the Contractor directly. In an international FIDIC project, there is no concept of a statutory “pay less notice” like in UK law, but the contract itself is clear about what’s due. For example, if a Contractor in a FIDIC-governed highway project in Asia submits an invoice for $10 million of work, the Employer (often a government or developer) knows it has 56 days to pay that amount once certified. This extended timeline can affect contractors’ cash flow, which is why sometimes Particular Conditions modify the period (some employers may shorten it to 30 days to be fairer to contractors, or some unfortunately delay beyond 56 days, causing disputes).
FIDIC Quick Links (deep dives)
All internal links go to related articles on your site (no self-linking to this page).
NEC Payment Mechanism — Original text (your content)
NEC Payment Mechanism: NEC contracts approach payment in a more dynamic way. In NEC, the concept of “assessment dates” is used – at regular intervals (often monthly, but it’s flexible), the Project Manager assesses the amount due to the Contractor. Depending on which main option is chosen in NEC, payment could be based on a lump sum price with milestones (Option A), bill of quantities (Option B), target cost (Option C/D with pain/gain share), or cost reimbursable (Option E/F). Let’s take a common scenario: NEC Option A (fixed price with an activity schedule). The Contractor provides an activity schedule with prices for each chunk of work. At each assessment date, the Project Manager certifies payment for completed activities (or percentage completed, if allowed). The NEC contract requires prompt payment as well – if under UK law, it will comply with the usual ~14 or 21-day payment periods as per the Act (when using Option Y(UK) clauses). A big difference in NEC is how changes (compensation events) are handled: when a compensation event occurs, the Contractor submits a quotation that includes the cost and time impact, and once agreed, that change is immediately added to the Price and Completion Date. This means the financial effects of changes are integrated into the project’s ongoing payment process without separate claims later. NEC’s payment process is tightly linked to the programme as well – for instance, if the Contractor fails to submit an updated programme, the Project Manager can actually assess compensation events (changes) based on their own view, which might disadvantage the Contractor, and NEC even allows withholding part of payment if the Contractor doesn’t submit a first programme on time. This essentially incentivizes the Contractor to keep the schedule updated to get paid fully. Like others, NEC uses retention and can have advance payments, but those are usually addressed via secondary options. Bottom line: NEC payments are forward-looking and activity/defined cost based, aimed at paying for what has been done and agreed changes, with a collaborative lens. On an NEC project (say a hospital in Hong Kong using NEC), the Contractor and Project Manager are continually in dialogue about what work has been completed and what events have affected the price, so interim payments tend to reflect the “agreed reality” of the project at that time. This can reduce surprises in the final account.
JCT Payment Process — Original text (your content)
JCT Payment Process: JCT contracts follow a more traditional interim payment certificate model, quite similar on the surface to FIDIC, but aligned with UK practices. Typically, the Contractor makes a payment application (often monthly), and a Quantity Surveyor (QS) or the Contract Administrator will do a valuation of the works executed to date. The Contract Administrator then issues an Interim Certificate stating the amount due to the Contractor. Under UK law and JCT terms, the Employer must then issue a Payment Notice (if the certificate itself isn’t taken as the notice) and pay the amount by the Final Date for Payment (commonly 14 days after the certificate in many JCT forms, but this can vary). If the Employer wants to pay less (due to disagreement on amount), they must issue a Pay Less Notice by a certain day, otherwise the amount certified is deemed agreed. These requirements come from the UK Construction Act, which JCT contracts expressly incorporate. So, a contractor building, say, a school under a JCT contract can expect a certificate each month for the work done, and payment within a few weeks – a much faster cycle than FIDIC’s default 56 days. JCT also typically includes retention (commonly around 3-5% of each payment retained, half released at practical completion, half upon making good defects). For variations, JCT provides that the QS will value them (using rates or fair valuation) and include them in the interim valuations. One thing to watch in JCT is the separation of “final account” procedures – after completion, the Contractor will apply for final payment and the Contract Administrator issues a Final Certificate, which has a special status (it can become conclusive if not challenged in time). The JCT process, if not managed well, can lead to end-of-project surprises (claims for additional payment, disagreements on the final account). However, in normal operation, it’s a tried-and-true system that contractors and employers in the UK are very comfortable with: regular cash flow, clear notices, and an ultimate reconciliation at project’s end.
Payment Differences in Practice
Payment Differences in Practice: A notable difference arises in cash flow timing – FIDIC’s longer payment window vs UK’s tighter schedules. International contractors often prefer more frequent payments to maintain cash flow, so on a FIDIC job they might negotiate shorter periods or milestone payments. NEC’s system requires more administrative discipline (frequent assessments and agreement on progress), which, when done right, means the contractor is never far behind on being paid for what they’ve done. JCT’s system, with the UK legal overlay, ensures fairness through notices and is very protective against non-payment (an area the UK law tackled due to historical issues of contractors not getting paid on time). Another difference: how claims for extra cost are handled. Under FIDIC and JCT, a contractor often has to submit a separate claim for things like prolongation costs or unforeseen work, which then gets assessed and may end up in dispute if not agreed. Under NEC, most of those are swept into compensation events, ideally agreed upfront, meaning fewer separate claims (in theory).
For example, consider a scenario where a project’s scope increases mid-way (change in design): Under a JCT contract, the Contract Administrator issues a variation instruction and the QS will value it (perhaps the contractor will later claim that the variation caused disruption and ask for extra cost – which might be contested). Under FIDIC, the Engineer also issues a variation and will adjust the contract price accordingly, and the contractor might claim additional time/cost if the variation is significant (with formal notice and backup). Under NEC, a scope change is immediately a compensation event – the contractor provides a quotation for the time and cost impact, and if the Project Manager agrees, the contract Price and Completion Date are adjusted right then. This tends to merge the payment and change process more seamlessly in NEC.
At a Glance — Who certifies, how fast, and how changes feed payments?
| Contract | Interim payment driver | Who certifies | Typical timing | Change mechanism | Notices / Deductions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FIDIC | Monthly statement → IPC | Engineer | ~56 days after statement (default) | Variations via Engineer; added into IPCs | No statutory Pay Less; suspension if non-payment (per clauses) |
| NEC | Assessment dates | Project Manager | Often ~14–21 days under Y(UK)* | Compensation events update Price & Date contemporaneously | Programme compliance can affect assessed amounts |
| JCT | Payment application → Interim certificate | CA/QS | Commonly ~14 days (varies by form) | QS values variations; included in interim valuations | Payment Notice & Pay Less Notice regime (UK Act) |
*Exact periods depend on jurisdiction and chosen options/forms.
Payment Timeline & Retention Simulator
This is an educational tool; always verify against your contract’s exact clauses and governing law.
Programme & Time: FIDIC vs NEC vs JCT 🎨
FIDIC – Programme as Reference & Claims for Time. The Contractor submits a detailed initial programme (often within ~28 days of start, e.g., 1999 Red Book 8.3), showing sequence, timing, and milestones; updates are provided when significant changes occur. In classic FIDIC 1999, the programme supports planning, while time adjustments flow mainly through notices and claims (e.g., EOT under 8.4 and Clause 20 time-bar, commonly ~28 days). The Engineer assesses delay and grants EOT if justified; Completion Date then shifts. Without EOT, the original Completion Date stands and Delay Damages may apply for Contractor delay.
• Claims → DAAB → Arbitration (pathway) → Clause 20 overview
• Golden Principles for fair Particular Conditions → Golden Principles
NEC – Programme is King (Active Time Management). The first programme is submitted for acceptance per Contract Data, then kept current—often monthly or on significant change. The Accepted Programme underpins progress, compensation events, and completion forecasts. Quotations for compensation events include time impact on the current programme; the Project Manager assesses against it. If the Contractor doesn’t keep programmes up to date, the contract may allow payment reductions or PM assumptions when assessing change. Options include acceleration requests and Key Dates, reinforcing real-time, collaborative control of time.
JCT – Master Programme & Extensions of Time. The Contractor provides a programme (via particulars/annex) but routine update cycles aren’t mandated by default. Time adjustments are granted by the Contract Administrator for Relevant Events (e.g., variations, exceptional weather). The CA may consider concurrency and practical effects before awarding EOT; the programme is typically adjusted after the EOT decision. Liquidated damages apply for culpable delay beyond the (revised) Completion Date.
Real-World Usage & Case Studies — FIDIC • NEC • JCT
Explore where each contract family thrives globally. Filter by region, scan quick case cards, and dive into your deeper articles.
Original text (kept intact)
FIDIC – Global Infrastructure Standard: FIDIC contracts truly shine in large international projects. They have been the go-to choice for multinational development bank funded projects, like roads, dams, and airports in developing countries. For example, many projects across the Middle East (Gulf region) use FIDIC – such as major high-rise developments in the UAE or infrastructure in Qatar. It’s common for a project in Dubai or Abu Dhabi to specify the FIDIC Red Book for construction, because it provides a neutral, internationally recognized framework. Contractors from different countries all know FIDIC, which helps put everyone on equal footing. In Africa, government public works often use FIDIC if there is international funding or foreign contractors. The clear dispute resolution via DAB and arbitration is comforting when local courts might be unfamiliar or slow for complex construction cases. Asia also sees FIDIC in use, for instance in India and Pakistan for certain large projects, and definitely in countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia for donor-funded works. One case study: the Gautrain project in South Africa (a high-speed rail link) used FIDIC contracts for its construction – allowing a French and local contractor JV and the government to work together under familiar terms. FIDIC’s influence is so widespread that many local standard contracts around the world borrow concepts from it. It’s often said that FIDIC is the “lingua franca” of international contracting. If you step into a meeting on a big project in say Nigeria or Oman, don’t be surprised to see a FIDIC contract on the table.
Gulf Region — UAE/Qatar
Specifying FIDIC Red Book for towers & infrastructure; neutral international framework.South Africa — Gautrain
High-speed rail using FIDIC; JV of international & local contractors with government client.South & SE Asia — Donor-Funded Works
Roads/water/airports under MDB funding; widespread FIDIC familiarity across bidders.Global — MDB Infrastructure
Roads, dams, airports: standardized risk & dispute mechanisms for complex environments.Africa — Public Works
Government works often specify FIDIC where foreign bidders or external funding are involved.Middle East — Broad Adoption
Frequent default for major builds; consistent baseline for multinational teams.Related reading on your site
Internal links point to other articles on your site (no self-linking to this page).
Original text (kept intact)
NEC – Increasing International Popularity: NEC started in the UK, but it’s been making waves globally in recent years. In the UK, NEC has been used for a lot of public infrastructure (e.g. Crossrail, High Speed 2 rail project, major highway projects), as well as the landmark London 2012 Olympics construction, which famously reported great success using NEC contracts. The collaborative approach was credited with helping deliver the Olympic venues on time and within budget. Internationally, Hong Kong was an early adopter outside the UK – by 2015 the Hong Kong government mandated NEC for many public works, and NEC has been used to build hospitals, universities, and even an entire port expansion there. In Australia, NEC has been used by Sydney Water and on transportation projects. It’s also seen in New Zealand (libraries and civic projects) and the Middle East (e.g., the Al Raha Beach development in Abu Dhabi used NEC4). One interesting use was in Peru, where the government signed an agreement in 2024 to adopt NEC for public infrastructure to improve transparency. These examples show NEC is no longer just a UK curiosity – it’s becoming a global player, especially for clients who want to instill modern project management practices into their contracts. However, NEC’s uptake is still strongest in the UK home turf. Many UK municipalities and private projects are now choosing NEC over JCT for complex projects to leverage that collaborative framework.
UK — Crossrail / HS2 / London 2012
Major public works credited NEC’s collaboration model for delivery benefits.Hong Kong — Government Mandate
Wide NEC use across hospitals, universities, and port expansion since mid-2010s.Australia & New Zealand
Utilities and civic projects (e.g., Sydney Water; libraries & civic builds in NZ).Abu Dhabi — Al Raha Beach
Example of NEC4 usage on a large mixed-use coastal development.Peru — 2024 Adoption
Government agreement to adopt NEC for transparency in public infrastructure.Original text (kept intact)
JCT – The UK’s Old Faithful (and former colonies): JCT contracts remain the dominant choice for building construction in England and Wales – studies showed about 70% of UK construction projects use JCT forms, which is a huge market share. For example, when a new commercial office tower or a residential development is built in London, there’s a very good chance it’s under a JCT Design and Build Contract or a JCT Standard Building Contract. Even iconic projects like The Shard skyscraper in London used a JCT contract (the Standard Building Contract) for its construction, as it provided a familiar structure with well-known risk allocation for that complex job. JCT’s influence historically extended to other Commonwealth countries – for instance, in the past, places like Malaysia, Singapore, and India sometimes used modified JCT contracts or had their own versions inspired by JCT. The Bhadani training blog mentions that JCT contracts have even been adopted in certain projects in India and Nigeria, likely due to the British legal influence in those regions. However, many of those countries have since developed their own standard forms or moved to FIDIC for international jobs. Still, you can find JCT usage in some international projects, particularly where a UK-based client or consultant drives the choice. But primarily, JCT’s stronghold is the UK domestic market. Within that, it’s everywhere – from small renovations (JCT Minor Works) up to major projects like hospital PFI schemes or airport terminals, JCT has a form for it. Contractors and employers often amend JCT contracts heavily to suit their needs, but the backbone is recognizable. The familiarity of JCT in the UK also means people are very aware of its pitfalls and how to manage them (like the need to serve notices for time and money claims, the process of certification, etc., which any UK project manager or contract administrator is trained in).
London — The Shard
Iconic tower delivered under a JCT Standard Building Contract framework.UK — Domestic Building Mainstay
From Minor Works to PFI hospitals and terminals — JCT forms dominate the building market.Asia — Historic Influence
Modified JCT or JCT-inspired forms previously used in Malaysia, Singapore, India.Africa — Historic Use
Examples of JCT adoption in Nigeria, often via UK-led clients/consultants.Comparison Table: FIDIC vs NEC vs JCT 🎨
| Aspect | FIDIC (e.g., Red/Yellow Book) | NEC (e.g., NEC4 ECC) | JCT (e.g., Standard Building / D&B) |
|---|
FIDIC Clause 20: Claims → DAAB → Arbitration
Understand the multi-tier path and time bars.
Interim Payment Certificates (FIDIC)
Flow, timing, and roles in payment administration.
Time for Completion – Clause 8.2
What shifts, when, and how it’s certified.
FIDIC Golden Principles
Designing fair, balanced Particular Conditions.