Kadernani & CompanyA FIDIC contract lawyer in the UAE can add the greatest value before a construction dispute becomes difficult to control.
On major projects, serious exposure rarely arises from one clause in isolation. It develops gradually: a notice is issued late, an instruction is acted upon without clarifying whether it constitutes a variation, programme records stop reflecting what is happening on site, a payment dispute becomes entrenched, or a technically credible claim is presented without the contractual and contemporaneous evidence required to support it.
By the time arbitration or litigation is being considered, many of those events can no longer be reconstructed easily.
FIDIC forms are widely used across UAE infrastructure, real estate, energy, industrial and engineering projects. Their familiarity should not be mistaken for simplicity.
The FIDIC framework allocates responsibility through detailed provisions dealing with design, access, variations, extensions of time, payment, claims, determinations, defects and dispute resolution. Those provisions must then be read together with the Particular Conditions, project specifications, schedules, UAE law and the parties' actual conduct.
The contract that matters is therefore not the standard FIDIC book sitting on a shelf.
It is the contract that the parties actually signed and subsequently administered.
Why FIDIC Contracts Require Focused Legal Oversight
FIDIC contracts are designed to provide a structured method for administering complex projects.
Depending on the form and edition, the contract allocates defined roles to the employer, contractor, engineer and, where applicable, a dispute board or Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB).
That structure can work effectively when the parties follow it.
Problems arise when commercial practice develops independently of the contractual machinery.
An engineer may communicate instructions informally.
A contractor may proceed with additional work before valuation is agreed.
The employer may make direct requests to site personnel.
Claims may be discussed extensively in meetings without the required contractual notice being issued.
Interim arrangements may continue for months without being formally documented.
Those practices may keep the project moving in the short term, but they can materially complicate entitlement later.
A FIDIC lawyer's role is therefore not to make project administration unnecessarily legalistic.
It is to ensure that commercial decisions taken during the project do not unintentionally surrender contractual rights or create liabilities that management did not intend to assume.
The FIDIC Book and Edition Matter
There is no single FIDIC contract.
The appropriate analysis starts by identifying exactly which form the parties have used.
Depending on the project, this may include the:
Red Book;
Yellow Book;
Silver Book;
or another FIDIC form.
The edition matters as well.
Projects in the UAE continue to use both 1999 and 2017 editions, sometimes with substantial bespoke amendments.
The claims and dispute-resolution mechanisms are not identical between those editions.
For example, the 2017 suite developed the claims process further and uses a DAAB structure, whereas earlier forms may operate through different procedural wording and dispute-board arrangements.
A lawyer should therefore avoid giving advice based merely on the statement that:
“This is a FIDIC contract.”
The correct questions are:
Which FIDIC form?
Which edition?
What do the Particular Conditions change?
And what other project documents form part of the Contract?
Until those questions are answered, advice on notice periods, entitlement or dispute procedure may be incomplete.
Particular Conditions Can Change the Standard Risk Allocation
In substantial UAE projects, the General Conditions are frequently amended extensively.
Those amendments may:
change the Engineer's authority;
alter notice deadlines;
restrict extension-of-time entitlement;
change the treatment of concurrent delay;
modify payment certification;
expand contractor indemnities;
change liability caps;
alter variation procedures;
modify termination rights; or
replace parts of the standard dispute-resolution mechanism.
A party familiar with the standard form can therefore be placed in a worse position if it assumes the familiar wording still applies.
The Particular Conditions should be reviewed as part of one integrated contract.
It is often useful to prepare a project-specific summary identifying the provisions that matter most to day-to-day administration.
For the project team, the practical question is not what FIDIC generally requires.
It is:
What must we do under this particular contract when a significant event occurs?
Legal Review Is Most Valuable Before Contract Signature
One of the best opportunities to manage a FIDIC dispute is before the project begins.
At that stage, the parties still have the ability to change risk allocation.
A pre-contract review may identify provisions concerning:
design responsibility;
site conditions;
extensions of time;
liquidated delay damages;
variations;
payment;
performance security;
termination;
indemnities;
liability limitations;
insurance;
subcontracting; and
dispute resolution
that require commercial attention before execution.
The objective should not be to renegotiate every clause.
Construction contracts allocate risk deliberately.
The important point is for management to understand which risks the business is accepting and whether the contract price, programme, insurance and project controls reflect that allocation.
An unfavourable clause that has been consciously priced and managed is different from one that is discovered only after the event giving rise to liability has occurred.
The Main Contract and Subcontracts Should Be Reviewed Together
Another recurring source of exposure is a mismatch between the main contract and subcontract package.
A main contractor may accept a strict notice period under the employer contract while giving its subcontractor a longer period to notify equivalent events.
The subcontractor may therefore submit a valid claim against the main contractor after the main contractor has already lost the opportunity to pass that claim upstream.
Similar problems can arise with:
extensions of time;
liquidated damages;
design liability;
insurance;
variation procedures;
payment; and
dispute resolution.
Describing a subcontract as “back-to-back” does not necessarily solve the problem.
The relevant obligations should actually be traced through the contractual chain.
Where the main contractor carries upstream obligations that depend on subcontractor information, the subcontract should give the contractor enough time and evidence to preserve the corresponding main-contract position.
Notices Are Part of Entitlement, Not Administrative Paperwork
Notice provisions are among the most important parts of FIDIC administration.
Depending on the edition and amendments, a party seeking additional time, payment or other relief may be required to notify the relevant event within a defined period and then submit supporting particulars.
The consequences of non-compliance depend on the actual clause, applicable law and circumstances.
It should not be assumed that a tribunal or court will disregard a contractual notice requirement simply because the other party already knew that a problem existed.
There is an important distinction between:
knowing that an event occurred; and
receiving a contractual notice asserting that the event gives rise to a particular entitlement.
For the contractor, the safest approach is ordinarily to preserve entitlement promptly while the consequences are still developing.
That does not require overstating the claim.
A measured notice can identify:
the relevant event;
the contractual basis relied upon;
the potential effect on time or cost; and
the fact that further particulars will follow where permitted by the contract.
The purpose is to preserve the position without unnecessarily escalating the relationship.
The New UAE Civil Transactions Law Makes Notice Even More Relevant
Notice is now important not only because of contractual FIDIC machinery.
The UAE's new Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 Promulgating the Civil Transactions Law, effective from 1 June 2026, introduces an express statutory requirement within the contracts-for-works framework requiring the contractor, in specified circumstances, to notify the employer promptly of matters capable of obstructing proper execution.
This reinforces a practical point that already matters under FIDIC:
when a material event arises, silence is rarely a good claims strategy.
Contractual and statutory notice requirements should nevertheless be analysed separately.
Compliance with one should not automatically be assumed to satisfy the other.
For projects entered into before 1 June 2026, the applicable transitional legal position should also be considered carefully.
Not Every Email Is a Contractual Notice
Project teams often assume that because an issue appears somewhere in the correspondence, notice has been given.
That may not be correct.
The contract may impose requirements concerning:
the form of notice;
the recipient;
the address or communication platform;
the contractual provision invoked; and
the time within which notice must be issued.
A discussion in meeting minutes may provide useful evidence.
A WhatsApp message may prove awareness.
A project email may establish chronology.
But none of those should automatically be assumed to satisfy a formal contractual notice provision.
The issue should be determined from the contract itself.
Employers Must Manage Notices With Equal Care
Notice discipline applies to employers as well.
An employer receiving a contractor claim should assess:
whether notice is timely;
whether the contractual basis is identified;
whether contemporaneous records are required;
whether mitigation steps should be instructed; and
whether further particulars are necessary.
A response should distinguish between acknowledging receipt and accepting entitlement.
The employer may need to cooperate operationally with the contractor without conceding the legal consequences asserted.
Likewise, an instruction intended to keep a project moving should not inadvertently become evidence that the employer accepted responsibility for delay or additional cost if that was not intended.
Project correspondence should therefore be commercially constructive and legally precise.
Variation Management Is One of the Most Common Sources of FIDIC Disputes
Construction does not always proceed according to the drawings and scope envisaged at tender stage.
Design develops.
Authority requirements change.
Site conditions emerge.
Operational requirements evolve.
The contractual mechanism for dealing with those changes is therefore fundamental.
A variation dispute often begins because the parties agree that additional work should be undertaken but do not agree:
whether the work is actually a Variation;
who had authority to instruct it;
how it should be valued; or
whether it affects completion.
The project team should address those questions while the work is taking place.
An instruction should be recorded properly.
If the contractor considers that an instruction constitutes a Variation, the required contractual procedure should be followed.
If the employer disputes that position, its response should also be recorded.
Work should not continue for months under an unresolved assumption that everybody will agree the valuation later.
Authority to Instruct Matters
Not every person working on a project has authority to change the contract.
Site personnel may make practical requests.
Consultants may comment on methods.
Designers may issue revised drawings.
Project managers may ask the contractor to accelerate particular activities.
The legal question is whether the relevant communication constitutes an instruction under the contract and whether the person giving it had authority to do so.
This should be examined against:
the contractual role of the Engineer;
delegations of authority;
Employer's Representative provisions where relevant;
contract amendments; and
the factual conduct of the parties.
The contractor should avoid assuming that every request creates an entitlement to additional payment.
The employer should equally avoid allowing its project organisation to issue directions informally and later arguing that nobody had authority to do so.
Clear project governance protects both sides.
Variation Valuation and Time Impact Should Be Considered Together
A variation does not concern price alone.
Additional work can affect:
sequence;
procurement;
design;
labour resources;
access; and
completion.
The time effect should therefore be considered when the variation is instructed rather than raised for the first time during the final account.
A contractor should establish how the changed work affects the programme.
An employer should examine whether the variation genuinely delays a critical activity or whether sufficient float remains.
Separating valuation from programme consequences can create unnecessary disputes later.
Extensions of Time Require Proof of Causation
A delaying event does not automatically entitle the contractor to an extension of time.
The analysis should establish whether the event for which the employer or another contractual risk category is responsible actually affected the contractual completion obligation.
Relevant evidence may include:
the baseline programme;
accepted programme revisions;
contemporaneous updates;
progress records;
site diaries;
procurement schedules;
drawing registers;
instructions;
meeting minutes; and
correspondence.
The key issue is causation.
The claim should explain how a particular event affected activities on the route to completion.
Simply producing a list of events that occurred during the delayed project is not enough.
Extension of Time and Prolongation Cost Are Separate Claims
A contractor can be entitled to additional time without necessarily being entitled to every cost incurred during that period.
An extension of time may protect the contractor from delay damages for the excused period.
Recovery of prolongation costs requires a separate contractual and evidential analysis.
Potential costs may include additional:
site supervision;
temporary facilities;
plant;
insurance;
accommodation; and
time-related preliminaries.
The claimant must still establish why those costs were incurred and whether the relevant contractual event gives rise to monetary entitlement.
A time award should not simply be converted automatically into a financial claim.
Concurrent Delay Should Not Be Reduced to a Slogan
Concurrent delay is frequently invoked in UAE construction disputes.
It is also frequently used imprecisely.
Two events occurring during the same period are not necessarily concurrent in the relevant contractual or technical sense.
The analysis should consider whether different events for which different parties are responsible independently affected critical completion during the same material period.
It should distinguish between:
true concurrent critical delay;
overlapping but non-critical events;
sequential delays; and
events that happened simultaneously without producing the same completion impact.
The contractual treatment should then be analysed.
Different agreements may allocate concurrency differently.
The consequence for an extension of time may also differ from the consequence for prolongation costs or delay damages.
There is therefore no useful universal statement that “concurrent delay means both parties share the delay.”
The contract and evidence must determine the result.
Programmes Are Evidence, but They Are Not the Entire Case
A scheduling programme is central to many FIDIC projects.
It should not be treated as infallible.
Programme logic may not match the way work was actually performed.
Updates may contain poor progress data.
Later programmes may silently revise logic relationships.
The recorded critical path may shift throughout construction.
Delay analysis should therefore compare the programme with contemporaneous project evidence.
An expert should be able to explain why the programme reflects reality, not merely what the software calculated.
This is particularly important on projects with:
multiple buildings;
phased handover;
sectional completion;
several contractors; or
substantial resequencing.
Project Records Turn Entitlement Into Proof
A project team may know exactly why an event caused delay or cost.
Several years later, a tribunal knows only what can be proved.
Record keeping is therefore one of the most valuable forms of dispute prevention.
Important records may include:
daily reports;
labour and equipment records;
site photographs;
programme files;
requests for information;
drawing and submittal registers;
inspection records;
procurement documentation;
meeting minutes;
instructions;
payment certificates;
cost ledgers; and
electronic correspondence.
The records should be retained systematically.
Native programme and electronic files should be preserved where relevant rather than retaining only printed or PDF versions.
By the time formal proceedings begin, the employees who created those records may no longer be working for either party.
Payment Disputes Need Contractual Discipline
Payment disputes are among the most commercially disruptive construction issues.
A contractor may depend on regular certification to fund continuing performance.
An employer may believe that defective work, delay or another counterclaim justifies withholding part of the amount claimed.
The first step is to identify the contractual mechanism.
The review may need to examine:
the payment application;
the Engineer's certification;
the timing of payment;
retention;
advance-payment recovery;
set-off or deduction rights;
contractual notices; and
the basis for any withheld amount.
The legal position should then be considered alongside the project's operational position.
A party may have a genuine entitlement but still need to decide whether immediate escalation supports the broader objective of achieving completion.
Certificates and Determinations Should Not Be Ignored
FIDIC procedures frequently assign important functions to the Engineer concerning certification and determination.
The exact role depends on the form, edition and Particular Conditions.
Where the Engineer issues a determination with which one party disagrees, the contract may impose a defined route and deadline for preserving the challenge.
A project team should therefore not simply record internally that:
“we disagree.”
It should identify what the contract requires next.
Failure to take the required procedural step can materially affect the position later.
The Engineer's Role Should Be Understood From the Actual Contract
The Engineer is not merely a messenger between employer and contractor.
Under many FIDIC structures, the Engineer performs significant contract-administration functions.
However, UAE Particular Conditions frequently modify those functions.
Employer approval may be required before particular instructions, variations or determinations can be issued.
The parties should understand:
what the Engineer can decide independently;
what requires Employer approval;
what has been delegated; and
how the contract deals with determinations and disagreement.
Ambiguity over the Engineer's authority can generate disputes that should have been resolved at contract drafting stage.
Acceleration Should Be Agreed Before the Cost Is Incurred
Acceleration frequently creates disputes because the commercial instruction is clearer than the contractual basis.
An employer may tell the contractor to:
recover the programme;
increase resources;
or
maintain the contractual completion date.
The contractor may interpret that as an instruction to accelerate compensably.
The employer may regard it merely as a requirement to remedy contractor-responsible delay.
Before substantial acceleration costs are incurred, the parties should clarify:
why acceleration is required;
whether it has been instructed contractually;
what completion objective applies;
who bears the cost; and
how additional resources will be recorded.
A short instruction can otherwise produce a very substantial final-account dispute.
Mitigation Should Be Recorded, Not Merely Asserted
A party affected by delay or disruption should consider reasonable steps to reduce unnecessary consequences.
Depending on the project, mitigation may include:
resequencing;
alternative procurement;
additional access arrangements;
resource adjustment; or
revised handover sequencing.
The legal team should ensure that mitigation does not inadvertently become an admission that the affected party accepted responsibility for the original event.
The commercial decision and reservation of rights can coexist.
The important point is that the reasoning should be documented.
The New Civil Transactions Law Must Now Be Considered Alongside FIDIC
For new UAE-law construction contracts, FIDIC should no longer be analysed against the old Civil Transactions Law alone.
Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, effective from 1 June 2026, introduced a revised statutory framework for contracts of works.
The new legislation addresses matters including:
contractor performance;
notification of circumstances affecting execution;
defective work;
termination;
agreed compensation;
exceptional circumstances affecting contractual equilibrium; and
long-term structural responsibility.
This does not make FIDIC irrelevant.
The detailed contract remains central to the parties' commercial allocation of risk.
It does mean that the Particular Conditions should be reviewed against the current statutory framework, including provisions that may be mandatory or capable of affecting contractual interpretation and remedies.
Agreed Delay Damages Require Current UAE Law Advice
FIDIC-based contracts commonly contain agreed damages for failure to achieve completion by the contractual date.
Under the current Civil Transactions Law, parties remain able to predetermine compensation contractually.
However, Article 340 gives the court powers in defined circumstances concerning agreed compensation, including reduction where the amount is excessive or the original obligation has been partly performed and where the creditor's own fault contributed to the damage.
The creditor may also seek compensation above the agreed amount where fraud or gross fault is proved.
Any agreement contrary to the statutory mechanism is void.
Delay-damages provisions should therefore be understood against current UAE law rather than treated simply as an arithmetic daily rate.
The underlying delay analysis remains essential.
Mandatory Decennial Liability Cannot Simply Be Contracted Away
FIDIC risk allocation must also be read alongside the UAE's statutory decennial liability framework.
Under the current Civil Transactions Law, long-term liability remains relevant to the contractor and supervising engineer in connection with specified serious structural defects and collapse.
The provisions are now principally contained in Articles 821 to 824.
This statutory regime can operate independently of the ordinary defects provisions contained in the construction contract.
Parties should therefore distinguish between:
the contractual defects-notification period; and
mandatory statutory responsibility for qualifying structural defects.
A clause attempting to reduce mandatory liability beyond what UAE law permits may not achieve the intended result.
For developers, contractors, engineers and insurers, this issue should be considered during contract negotiation rather than after a significant defect emerges.
Exceptional Circumstances Require Contract and Statutory Analysis
Major projects can be affected by events that substantially alter cost or performance assumptions.
The new Civil Transactions Law includes updated provisions addressing exceptional circumstances affecting the economic equilibrium of contracts for works.
That framework may, where the statutory conditions are satisfied, permit adjustment of the contractual position.
It should not be treated as a general mechanism for escaping an unattractive bargain.
The analysis should consider:
the circumstances themselves;
whether they were reasonably foreseeable;
their effect on contractual equilibrium;
the risk allocation in the FIDIC contract; and
the relief permitted under applicable law.
For long-duration projects exposed to major geopolitical, supply-chain or economic disruption, these issues should be considered before positions become entrenched.
Termination Rights Deserve Separate Review
Termination provisions have substantial commercial consequences and should never be exercised solely on the basis of a project team's frustration.
A FIDIC contract may contain rights concerning contractor default, employer default, prolonged suspension or termination for convenience.
The new UAE Civil Transactions Law also introduces relevant statutory provisions concerning termination of contracts for works.
Before issuing a termination notice, the legal team should examine:
whether the contractual trigger exists;
whether preliminary notices are required;
whether cure periods apply;
whether the correct person is issuing the notice;
what happens to plant, materials and documents;
how accounts are determined; and
what statutory rights or liabilities may arise.
A defective termination can transform an apparently strong contractual position into a substantial damages claim.
The Dispute Board Should Not Be Considered Only After the Dispute Has Escalated
Under FIDIC structures containing a DAB or DAAB mechanism, the dispute board can play an important role in dispute avoidance as well as formal determination.
The contractual procedure should be understood from the beginning.
Depending on the edition, Particular Conditions and project structure, the board may be constituted on a standing or ad hoc basis.
A standing DAAB familiar with the project may provide value before disagreements develop into formal disputes.
The board's role, referral procedure and effect of decisions should be understood by the project team.
If the contract requires a dispute-board step before arbitration, bypassing that procedure can create an additional dispute over whether arbitration was commenced properly.
Notices of Dissatisfaction Can Be as Important as the Original Claim
A party receiving an adverse Engineer's determination or dispute-board decision should immediately examine the contractual next step.
FIDIC procedures may require a Notice of Dissatisfaction within a specified period if a party wishes to prevent a determination or decision from acquiring a particular contractual status.
That deadline should be treated with the same seriousness as an original claims notice.
A strong substantive argument may be difficult to pursue if the contractual challenge mechanism is ignored.
Project teams should therefore escalate significant determinations to legal counsel promptly rather than waiting until the next monthly claims meeting.
Amicable Settlement Procedures Should Have a Purpose
FIDIC contracts may require a period of amicable settlement before arbitration.
That should not become an administrative waiting period during which nothing meaningful occurs.
Where settlement is commercially possible, senior decision-makers should use that stage to identify:
which issues can be agreed;
what financial exposure remains;
whether completion can be protected;
whether security can be provided; and
whether the dispute can be separated from continuing project performance.
A negotiated solution may preserve more value than a final arbitral award obtained years later.
Settlement should nevertheless be informed by a clear understanding of contractual entitlement and evidence.
Arbitration Clauses Should Be Checked Against the Current Rules
FIDIC forms often contemplate international arbitration, but Particular Conditions may select a specific institution or alter the standard dispute route.
UAE projects frequently refer disputes to institutions including DIAC and ICC, while international transactions may also use SIAC or other arbitral bodies.
The applicable rules should be checked in their current form.
DIAC currently operates under the DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022.
The ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 entered into force on 1 June 2026 for arbitrations commenced from that date, subject to the Rules' applicable provisions.
The arbitration strategy should consider:
the seat;
governing law;
language;
tribunal composition;
emergency relief;
expert evidence;
multi-contract disputes;
document preservation; and
eventual enforcement.
The arbitral institution and the legal seat should not be confused.
DIFC, ADGM and Onshore UAE Seats Produce Different Legal Frameworks
A UAE project may be physically located in Dubai or Abu Dhabi while the arbitration is legally seated somewhere else.
An arbitration seated in onshore UAE operates under the federal arbitration framework.
An arbitration seated in the DIFC operates within the DIFC arbitration framework and supervisory court structure.
An arbitration seated in ADGM operates under its separate arbitration regime.
The hearing itself may be held somewhere different without changing the seat.
This distinction matters because the seat can affect:
court supervision;
challenges to the award;
interim measures; and
procedural law.
The correct seat should therefore be chosen deliberately.
Interim Relief May Be Needed Before the Final Dispute Is Determined
Construction disputes sometimes require immediate protection.
A party may need to address:
a performance-security call;
asset dissipation;
preservation of evidence;
access to site;
possession of materials; or
another urgent issue
before the final merits can be resolved.
The available route depends on the contract, seat, arbitral rules and competent courts.
Legal counsel should therefore assess interim remedies as soon as the issue arises rather than assuming that the final arbitration will provide sufficient protection.
The commercial value of an eventual award can be substantially reduced if the relevant asset or security position has already disappeared.
Expert Evidence Should Be Developed With the Legal Case
Large FIDIC disputes often involve technical experts.
Depending on the issues, these may include:
delay experts;
quantity surveyors;
engineers;
architects;
valuation experts; and
forensic accountants.
Experts should not be engaged merely to support a conclusion that management has already reached.
The legal and expert teams should identify the questions that actually require specialist evidence and ensure that the factual assumptions used by the expert are consistent with the contractual case.
A delay report based on one chronology and legal submissions based on another will weaken the claim.
Expert analysis should explain the project.
It should not replace the contemporaneous evidence.
A Claims Protocol Can Prevent Disputes From Becoming Unmanageable
For large or high-risk projects, one of the most useful steps is to establish a project-specific claims protocol.
The protocol can identify:
which events require immediate escalation;
who drafts contractual notices;
who approves them;
which records must be preserved;
how time and cost impacts are tracked;
when legal advice is required; and
when specialist experts should become involved.
This avoids the common situation in which engineering, commercial and legal teams each maintain a different version of the same claim.
A single disciplined process improves both project management and dispute readiness.
Senior Management Needs a Commercial View of the Contract
A complex FIDIC project can generate thousands of contractual communications.
Senior management should not have to read all of them.
It should, however, understand the issues capable of materially affecting:
completion;
project cost;
cash flow;
delay damages;
security;
termination; and
dispute exposure.
Legal reporting should translate the contractual position into those commercial consequences.
Management should know:
which claims are strongest;
which claims are weak;
what exposure exists;
which deadlines matter;
what evidence is missing;
what settlement range may be sensible; and
whether the project strategy remains aligned with the legal position.
The lawyer should help management make decisions rather than merely report correspondence.
When a FIDIC Contract Lawyer Adds the Most Value
Legal advice is particularly valuable at three stages.
The first is before contract execution.
At that point, risk can still be allocated, Particular Conditions negotiated and the claims procedure designed around the project.
The second is when a material event first affects time, cost, scope or payment.
At that stage, notices can still be issued properly, evidence preserved and commercial options assessed before positions become entrenched.
The third is when a determination or formal dispute indicates that arbitration or litigation may become necessary.
The focus then shifts toward:
claim theory;
evidence;
expert analysis;
forum strategy;
settlement leverage; and
enforcement.
Waiting until the final account is disputed usually gives counsel fewer options than involving them when the underlying event first develops.
The Contract Should Help Deliver the Project
FIDIC administration should not become an exercise in generating paperwork for its own sake.
The purpose of the contract is to provide a framework through which a complex project can be delivered while allocating the consequences when events do not proceed as planned.
A well-administered FIDIC contract should allow the project team to answer:
Who carries this risk?
Who must be notified?
What decision is required?
What evidence should be kept?
Does the event affect time, money or both?
And what happens if the parties disagree?
Where the contract can answer those questions while the project is live, formal disputes become easier to avoid or manage.
Where the answers are considered only after completion, the dispute frequently becomes an expensive reconstruction exercise.
How Kadernani & Company Legal Consultants Can Assist
Kadernani & Company Legal Consultants provides strategic, commercially focused legal advice to developers, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, investors and project stakeholders involved in major construction and engineering projects throughout Dubai, Abu Dhabi, the wider UAE and international markets.
For professional advice regarding FIDIC contracts in the UAE, FIDIC contract review, construction claims, variations, extensions of time, delay damages, payment disputes, dispute boards, DIAC or ICC arbitration and construction dispute strategy, contact Kadernani & Company Legal Consultants to discuss the legal and commercial requirements of the project.
Our approach begins with the contract actually signed rather than with a generic understanding of FIDIC.
The first review should identify the FIDIC form and edition, Particular Conditions, governing law, notice requirements, Engineer's authority, claims procedure, payment regime, variation mechanism, dispute-board provisions and final dispute forum.
Where the project is still under negotiation, this allows material risks to be identified before they become fixed.
Where construction is already underway, the focus shifts toward preserving entitlement and maintaining a reliable contractual record without interfering unnecessarily with project delivery.
For contractors, this can include advice concerning late access, variations, delayed information, exceptional events, extensions of time, prolongation, disruption, acceleration and payment.
For employers and developers, it can include review of contractor claims, contractual notices, programme impact, delay-damages exposure, variation control, certification, termination and project-completion strategy.
The legal analysis should also reflect the current UAE statutory framework.
For contracts within its temporal scope, Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, effective from 1 June 2026, should now be considered alongside the FIDIC terms, particularly in relation to contracts for works, notification obligations, defects, agreed compensation, exceptional circumstances, termination and mandatory structural liability.
The statutory framework does not replace the negotiated FIDIC contract.
It determines part of the legal environment within which that contract operates.
Where a project is moving toward formal dispute resolution, the contractual, technical and evidential workstreams should be brought together early.
Claims should be tested against:
the actual contract;
contemporaneous documents;
programme evidence;
cost records;
potential counterclaims; and
the practical enforcement position.
Delay and quantum experts should be engaged where their evidence adds genuine value, with legal and technical teams working from one coherent chronology.
Settlement should remain a commercial option throughout the process. A properly developed contractual position may allow the parties to resolve time, payment, acceleration, variation or final-account issues without surrendering legitimate rights unnecessarily.
Where arbitration becomes necessary, the strategy should extend beyond the merits to the seat, institutional rules, interim measures, tribunal composition and eventual enforcement route.
A FIDIC contract cannot prevent every variation, delay or disagreement on a complex construction project.
Proper contract administration can, however, prevent many of those events from becoming avoidable legal disputes and place the client in a materially stronger position when formal proceedings cannot be avoided.
For boards and senior project decision-makers, the practical test is straightforward:
when a significant event occurs, the project team should know what the contract requires, what must be communicated, what evidence must be preserved and what commercial decision must be made.
Where those answers are unclear, early senior-led FIDIC and construction-law advice is usually more valuable than attempting to reconstruct the position after the project has already moved on.