Constructive Counsel by Mehak Oberoi

Most construction professionals know the textbook distinction between reasonable skill and care and fitness for purpose.

One is a conduct standard.
The other is an outcome standard.

One asks: Did the contractor act competently?
The other asks: Did the works achieve the contractual performance outcome?

On paper, the distinction sounds straightforward.

But the real problem on projects is rarely misunderstanding the legal theory. The real damage happens because fitness for purpose obligations slip into contracts quietly, wearing the clothes of technical specifications, performance KPIs, Employer’s Requirements, or turnkey language nobody fully stress-tested during tender stage.

And by the time the plant underperforms, the turbine misses guaranteed output, or the system fails reliability testing, the argument has already changed.

Nobody is discussing whether the contractor was careful anymore.

The conversation shifts toward a much harsher question:

“Did the system achieve the contractual result it was supposed to achieve?”

That is where exposure becomes brutal.

Under a reasonable skill and care standard, a contractor may still avoid liability even where the outcome is imperfect, provided the design decisions were professionally defensible and within accepted engineering judgment. Construction is not a world of guarantees. Sometimes even competent designs fail under real operating conditions.

But fitness for purpose changes the centre of gravity entirely.

The focus moves away from professional conduct and toward whether the contractual performance outcome was achieved. In practical terms, it is the difference between saying:

“We designed this competently.”

versus

“We undertook responsibility for achieving this performance outcome.”

That distinction looks academic in a negotiation room. It looks very different when liquidated damages are running, lenders are asking questions, and commissioning teams are sleeping on site.

And this obligation rarely arrives politely announced.

It creeps in through performance specifications.

A clause saying the plant “shall achieve X MW output under specified operating conditions” sounds technical. But commercially and legally, that sentence can fundamentally alter the contractor’s risk profile. The moment outputs become contractual promises, the conversation starts moving away from professional negligence and toward guaranteed performance expectations.

This is where EPC contractors often walk into trouble.

The technical team reviews the specification.
The legal team reviews the liability clauses.
The commercial team negotiates the price.

But nobody pauses to ask the dangerous question:

“Have the specifications themselves already created a fitness for purpose style obligation?”

Because sometimes the obligation is not sitting in the warranty clause at all. It is hiding inside the output table in Appendix 7.

FIDIC Silver Book is a classic example of this risk architecture.

The 1999 Silver Book structure allocates significant design and performance risk to the contractor and is frequently interpreted as imposing fitness for purpose style obligations linked to the Employer’s Requirements. And when those requirements are drafted around output guarantees, availability metrics, heat rates, generation thresholds, or production KPIs, the “purpose” against which fitness is measured becomes embedded into the project DNA.

The scary part is that many tender negotiations still discuss these provisions as though they are ordinary design obligations.

They are not.

A reasonable skill and care obligation says:
“Build it competently.”

A fitness for purpose style obligation says:
“Take responsibility for achieving the defined project outcome.”

Those are two completely different insurance and pricing conversations.

And then comes the insurance shock.

Most project teams assume professional indemnity insurance will respond because “it’s a design issue.” That assumption can become catastrophically expensive.

Standard PI insurance is fundamentally built around negligence-based liability. Insurers price professional conduct risk. They assess whether the contractor exercised the competence expected from a skilled professional.

But pure contractual guarantees that go beyond negligence standards may sit outside cover unless specifically endorsed into the policy.

That is why contractors should never assume their PI programme automatically responds to fitness for purpose exposure.

In some markets, insurers may agree to project-specific endorsements. In others, the market is far more restrictive. And where liability arises solely because a contractual performance guarantee was assumed, rather than because of negligent design, coverage gaps can become painfully real.

Which means contractors sometimes sign performance obligations that sit partially or entirely outside their insurance programme.

That is the contractual equivalent of discovering mid-voyage that the lifeboats were decorative.

And this becomes even more dangerous in design-build and specialist systems projects.

In some jurisdictions, courts may imply fitness for purpose style obligations where the employer relied on the contractor’s specialist expertise to deliver a functioning outcome. Particularly in sectors like process plant, water treatment, HVAC, or renewable generation systems, the contractor is not merely supplying drawings. They are effectively selling functionality.

Then comes the layered liability problem that many project teams underestimate.

The same EPC contract can simultaneously contain:

a reasonable skill and care design obligation,
fitness for purpose style performance obligations,
implied obligations relating to supplied equipment,
and separate performance guarantee regimes.

Different standards applying to different parts of the scope.

That is where disputes become messy very quickly.

Because on actual projects, “purpose” is rarely static.

The employer’s expectations evolve. Grid conditions change. Operating assumptions shift. Production targets move. Yet the contractual wording often remains vague enough for everyone to reinterpret it once disputes start.

And vague purposes are dangerous purposes.

A loosely drafted performance obligation gives enormous hindsight leverage during arbitration. Suddenly, the employer argues that the “purpose” included broader commercial expectations nobody clearly documented during tender.

That is why defining the purpose precisely is not drafting hygiene. It is survival strategy.

Specific outputs.
Specific operating conditions.
Specific acceptance criteria.
Specific testing methodology.

The narrower and clearer the purpose definition, the more manageable the exposure becomes.

Because once commissioning fails, ambiguity becomes expensive very quickly.

The projects that avoid disaster are usually not the ones with perfect contracts.

They are the ones where someone asked uncomfortable questions early enough.

What exactly are we warranting?
What happens if performance is missed?
What assumptions sit behind the KPIs?
Is this insurable?
Have we priced uninsured exposure?
Are the operating conditions properly defined?

Those conversations feel painful during tender stage.

But nowhere near as painful as having them three years later in front of a tribunal.

The biggest misconception in construction law is that risk sits neatly inside the liability clause.

Often, it sits quietly inside the specification.

And the most dangerous obligations are the ones nobody realised they agreed to until the plant stopped performing.

If this resonates with you, join the ConstructHER Global Legal Network, a space for women in construction and infrastructure law to exchange ideas, share opportunities, and continue the conversation beyond this piece.

Backcharges: The Art of the Deduction Nobody Documented Properly

Mehak Oberoi — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 05:41:51 GMT

A backcharge sounds simple. One party does something the other party should have done. The party who stepped in deducts the cost from the next payment. Done.

Except it is almost never done. It is almost always a dispute waiting for the right moment to become a bigger dispute.

Backcharges are one of the most common sources of final account conflict in construction — not because the concept is complicated, but because the execution is usually a shambles. The work gets done. The cost is real. The deduction appears. And the contractual basis for it is somewhere between thin and nonexistent.

What a Backcharge Actually Is

A backcharge is a deduction made by one party — usually the employer or main contractor — against another party’s payments, to recover costs incurred because the other party failed to perform an obligation under the contract.

Classic examples:

Contractor fails to maintain site cleanliness. Employer hires a cleaning crew and deducts the cost.
Subcontractor fails to complete a snagging item. Main contractor fixes it with their own team and charges the subcontractor.
Contractor fails to provide adequate safety measures. Employer arranges compliance and recovers the cost.

The underlying principle is reasonable: if you do not do what you agreed to do, and I have to do it instead, you pay for it.

The problem is almost never the principle. It is the process — or the complete absence of one.

How Backcharges Are Usually Handled (Badly)

Step one: The employer notices something is not being done.

Step two: Someone tells the contractor verbally, or in a site meeting, or in a WhatsApp message to the wrong person.

Step three: The contractor either does not respond quickly enough, or disputes that the obligation was theirs, or starts the work but does not finish it.

Step four: The employer arranges for the work to be done, usually at short notice, usually at an unfavourable rate.

Step five: The cost lands in the next payment certificate as a deduction, with a brief description and no supporting documentation.

Step six: The contractor disputes the deduction. The employer insists on it. Neither party can produce a clean paper trail. The dispute moves to the final account.

This is not hypothetical. This is how backcharges are administered on probably seventy percent of active construction projects right now.

What the Contract Usually Requires

Most construction contracts — FIDIC included — require a specific process before a party can backcharge:

First: A formal notice that the obligation is not being met. Not a site meeting comment. Not a WhatsApp. A written notice, addressed properly, referring to the contract clause, specifying what is required and by when.

Second: A reasonable opportunity to remedy. The other party must have a real chance to fix the problem before costs are incurred on their behalf. Issuing a notice at 4pm and engaging a contractor the next morning does not count as a reasonable opportunity.

Third: Notice of intention to backcharge. Some contracts require a further notification that if the remedy is not completed by a specified date, the party will arrange it and recover the cost.

Fourth: Documentation of the cost incurred. The actual invoice from whoever did the work, demonstrating the cost was reasonable and related to the specific failure.

Skip any of these steps and the backcharge is vulnerable. Skip all of them — as frequently happens — and you have a deduction without a contractual leg to stand on.

The “Reasonable Cost” Problem

Even when the backcharge is properly notified, the quantum is often challenged.

The employer arranged for work to be done at short notice. Short notice means premium rates. Premium rates mean the cost is higher than what the contractor would have spent. The contractor objects: “We would have done it for half that.”

The employer’s position: “You didn’t do it at all. We had no choice.”

The legal answer is that the cost must be reasonable in the circumstances — and what is reasonable is affected by the urgency created by the contractor’s failure. If you were given proper notice and adequate time, you had the chance to keep the cost reasonable. If you ignored the notice, you cannot complain about the rate that was charged in your absence.

But this argument only works if the notice was properly given and the time allowed was genuinely reasonable. If the employer rushed the process and then charged a premium, the reasonableness argument cuts both ways.

The Disputed Obligation

The most common backcharge fight is not about the cost. It is about whether the obligation existed at all.

“That was not our responsibility under the scope.”

“The contract says it is your scope.”

“Show me the clause.”

This argument happens because scopes of work are imprecise, interface responsibilities are vague, and both parties spent construction telling themselves the ambiguity would be resolved without formal discussion. The backcharge is where the ambiguity finally forces a conversation — a year too late, with a deduction already applied.

If the obligation is genuinely disputed, the backcharge may not be permissible at all until the underlying scope question is resolved. Applying a deduction before the right to make it is established is commercially aggressive, sometimes contractually wrong, and almost always productive of unnecessary hostility.

Backcharges as Commercial Pressure

A word on what backcharges sometimes really are.

Not every backcharge is a genuine cost recovery. Some are commercial pressure — a way of reducing what the employer owes, improving leverage in negotiations, or signalling unhappiness with the contractor’s performance without issuing a formal notice of default.

Contractors know this. They dispute all backcharges as a reflex, even when some are legitimate, because they assume the rest are inflated or invented.

Employers know contractors know this. So they apply backcharges liberally, expecting to settle somewhere in the middle.

This dynamic — common enough to be almost industry standard — makes backcharge disputes worse than they need to be. It creates an atmosphere of bad faith in the commercial relationship, inflates final account disputes, and ensures that genuinely legitimate backcharges get contested as aggressively as spurious ones.

The fix is simple in principle and difficult in practice: only apply backcharges when you have the contractual basis, the notice trail, and the supporting documentation. When you do, apply them properly. When you do not, do not apply them at all. Resist the temptation to use them as leverage.

This approach is rare. It is also the one that produces faster final account settlements and fewer arbitrations.

What Good Backcharge Administration Looks Like

Keep a backcharge register. Every potential backcharge — from the moment the failure is identified — should be logged with the date, the nature of the failure, the relevant contract clause, the notice issued, the cure period, and the outcome.

Issue notices promptly and in the right form. Do not skip the formal step because you think it is obvious. It is not obvious to the contractor’s legal team eighteen months later.

Allow a genuine remedy period. Not cosmetic. Real. If the contractor remedies the failure within the time allowed, there is no backcharge. That is the whole point.

Document the cost properly. Invoice from the third party. Clear description of the work. Confirmation that it relates to the specific failure for which notice was given.

Apply only the actual cost. Not a rounded figure. Not an estimate. Not a global deduction for “poor performance.” The actual, documented cost of the specific work done.

Notify the backcharge formally. The deduction should appear in a payment certificate with a clear breakdown, not as a mysterious negative line item that the contractor discovers when their payment arrives.

The Subcontractor Dimension

Everything above applies with added complexity when the backcharge runs down the contractual chain — from employer to main contractor to subcontractor.

The main contractor is caught in the middle: disputing the employer’s backcharge upwards while trying to pass it down to the subcontractor. This only works if:

the back-to-back provisions in the subcontract actually cover the same obligation
the main contractor administered the backcharge against the subcontractor properly
the subcontractor was given the same notice and remedy opportunities required under the main contract

If the main contractor took the hit from the employer but cannot recover it from the subcontractor — because the subcontract scope is different, or the notice process was not followed — the main contractor absorbs the cost.

This is not theoretical. It happens regularly and expensively.

A backcharge is not a deduction. It is a contractual process that ends in a deduction, if the process is followed correctly.

The parties who get backcharges right maintain a register, issue proper notices, allow genuine remedy periods, document actual costs, and apply deductions transparently. Their backcharges stick. Their final accounts settle faster. Their disputes are smaller.

The parties who get it wrong treat backcharges as a financial comment on their displeasure with the contractor, apply them without documentation, and then wonder why the final account is a battlefield.

The deduction is not the problem. The lack of process behind it is.

And in arbitration, a deduction without a process is just a number the employer made up — which is not what any party wants to be defending.

The End of Retention? UK’s Commercial Payments Bill and What It Means for Construction

Tue, 26 May 2026 05:42:08 GMT

Something that construction lawyers have debated for decades may finally be happening.

On 13 May 2026, the King’s Speech confirmed the government’s intention to legislate on late payments. Six days later, on 19 May 2026, the Small Business Protections (Late Payments) Bill — formerly referred to as the Commercial Payments Bill, HL Bill 4 — was introduced into the House of Lords. It is a Department for Business and Trade Bill, sponsored by Lord Leong.

Among its several sweeping measures on late payment, one stands out for the construction sector: a statutory ban on retention payments.

If enacted, this would be the most significant change to construction payment law in the UK since the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA).

Let that land for a second.

How We Got Here

Aka: Thirty Years of Asking Nicely, Finally Followed by Legislation

The Bill did not arrive without warning.

A public consultation ran from 31 July to 23 October 2025, inviting views on tackling poor payment practices. Late payments cost the UK economy an estimated £11 billion per year and are associated with the closure of 38 businesses every single day. The construction supply chain sits at the sharp end of this problem — and retention has long been identified as a key driver.

The campaign to reform construction retentions has been running for years. Parliamentary debates have cited estimates that, in England alone, between £3 billion and £6 billion of retention money is withheld at any one time — cash sitting in the system, unavailable to the contractors and subcontractors who earned it, exposed to the risk of upstream insolvency.

On 24 March 2026, the Government published its consultation response, titled Time to Pay Up. Of the 867 responses received, 87% favoured reform of the retentions regime. Of those, 53% indicated they could support either option presented. The Government announced it would take forward Option A: an outright prohibition on the deduction and withholding of retention payments under construction contracts.

The Bill introduced in May 2026 is the legislative vehicle for that commitment.

What the Bill Does

Aka: The Full List of Things That Will Make Certain Finance Teams Very Uncomfortable

The Commercial Payments Bill amends the HGCRA 1996 and introduces several interlocking measures relevant to construction:

Retention ban. The Bill prohibits the deduction and withholding of retention payments under the terms of a construction contract. This targets the standard practice of employers or main contractors holding back a percentage — typically 3–5% — of sums due to the payee as security against defects or incomplete works.

Maximum payment terms. A statutory cap of 60 days is imposed on payment periods, with strictly limited exemptions.

Mandatory late payment interest. Interest will run automatically on late payments at 8% above the Bank of England base rate — non-excludable and non-negotiable. The Bill builds on and significantly strengthens the framework first set out in the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. The government describes it as delivering the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7.

Supplier protections. Suppliers gain the right to a fixed sum where a purchaser raises a dispute late or without sufficient information.

Stronger enforcement. The Small Business Commissioner (SBC) receives new powers to investigate businesses suspected of persistent late payment, adjudicate disputes between small and larger businesses, and impose financial penalties.

Critically, the Government has confirmed the measures will not be applied retrospectively. Payments, contracts, and disputes will be judged according to the rules in place at the relevant time. A transition period will be provided before provisions come into force.

The Anti-Avoidance Question

Aka: “We Didn’t Call It Retention — We Called It a Milestone Structure.” Nice Try.

The most legally interesting aspect of the retention ban is what it actually reaches.

Construction contracts do not always call a retention a retention. Front-loaded or uneven milestone schedules, deferred final payments linked to defects rectification, and other mechanisms can produce the same commercial effect as a classical percentage holdback — without ever using the word “retention.”

The Bill’s drafting approach targets the substance and commercial effect of any withholding mechanism, not merely its label. The statutory definition of prohibited “retention practices” is understood to capture any mechanism by which money equating to a sum otherwise due is withheld pending completion, defects rectification, or expiry of a specified period — regardless of how it is named in the contract.

This creates a significant risk for creative drafting. Courts and adjudicators will likely ask:

Is this money already earned, being withheld as security?
Is the timing of entitlement genuinely linked to remaining scope — or to a defects period?
Does the payment structure reflect real commercial sequencing, or is it engineered to replicate retention?

Not every deferred payment will be vulnerable. Genuine milestone structures, completion bonuses, performance incentives, and staged commissioning payments — where the deferred amount reflects real unfinished scope rather than withheld security — should survive scrutiny. But the burden of demonstrating that distinction will fall on the party seeking to rely on the mechanism.

The working risk landscape, as currently understood:

Note: this risk classification reflects current legal analysis of the Bill’s drafting approach. Final adjudication outcomes will depend on how courts and adjudicators apply the substance-over-form test in specific fact patterns. The Bill’s implementation provisions, once settled, may also affect the scope of these categories.

What This Means in Practice

The industry is already thinking through the alternatives. Traditional cash retention must be replaced with something. The leading candidates include:

Retention bonds — the risk is transferred to an insurer or surety
Performance bonds
Parent Company Guarantees (PCGs)
Project Bank Accounts (PBAs) — ring-fenced accounts that protect supply chain cash

Each comes with its own cost structure. Contractors and subcontractors who previously bore the cost of retained money (in cash flow terms) will need to factor in the cost of providing alternative security instruments. Contract pricing will need to reflect this.

Standard forms — JCT, NEC, FIDIC — will require revision. Bespoke contracts currently containing retention provisions will need to be reviewed and amended before the regime comes into force.

Defects management regimes will also need attention. In the absence of a financial incentive in the form of held-back money, employers will need to rely more heavily on contractual snagging mechanisms, practical completion definitions, and performance security instruments.

In other words: the risk doesn’t disappear. It just moves — and someone needs to price it.

The Bigger Picture

The retention debate in the UK has been running for over thirty years. The construction supply chain has borne the consequences — cash withheld, insolvency risk unprotected, and billions of pounds trapped in the system at any given time.

The Commercial Payments Bill represents a political and legislative commitment to end that practice. As Business Secretary Peter Kyle put it at the Bill’s introduction: “Costing the UK economy £11 billion every single year, late payments choke growth, cost jobs, and force too many good businesses to close. That ends today.”

The direction of travel is clear. The Government has indicated it will consult further on the timing and implementation of the retention ban before it comes into force — so the final shape of the transition provisions matters enormously for ongoing projects and frameworks. The Construction Leadership Council and the financial services sector are already engaged on developing practical alternatives and strengthening the surety market.

For construction lawyers, contract managers, and commercial teams, the message is simple: the time to start reviewing contract templates, security arrangements, and supply chain payment structures is now — not when Royal Assent lands.

Because in construction, the parties who wait for the law to arrive before updating their contracts are usually the ones explaining themselves in adjudication six months later.

Views expressed are personal.

Final Account Negotiations: Where Every Ghost of the Project Comes Back to Haunt You

Mehak Oberoi — Fri, 22 May 2026 07:23:57 GMT

The handover certificate is signed. The snag list is (mostly) closed.

And then the final account process begins.

And out of the fog of completed works and faded memories comes every unresolved variation, every disputed backcharge, every withheld retention, every informal instruction that someone swore would “be sorted later,” and every claim that was parked during construction because there was a project to deliver.

Later has arrived. And it brought friends.

What a Final Account Is Supposed to Be

In theory, the final account is a clean, contractually structured settlement of everything financial between the parties at the end of a construction project. It captures:

the final contract sum, after all variations
all agreed additions and deductions
any outstanding claims by either party
retention adjustments
any liquidated damages applied
and the final balance - what is owed, by whom, by when

It is the financial full stop at the end of the project sentence.

In practice, it is rarely that clean. It is more often the opening move in a dispute that has been brewing since month three, staffed by people who were not on the project and armed with records that are incomplete, inconsistent, or missing entirely.

ConstructHER Whatsapp community

Why Final Accounts Go Wrong: The Real Reasons

The people who knew what happened are gone.

By the time the final account is negotiated, the project manager who gave the verbal instruction, the engineer who agreed the scope change, and the commercial manager who said “don’t worry about it” are all on other projects. Their replacements are reading files and drawing conclusions from documents that tell half the story.

The other half lived in conversations, site meetings, WhatsApp messages, and the institutional memory of people who are no longer in the room.

This is why contemporaneous records are everything. The email that felt like admin during construction becomes the only surviving evidence of what was actually agreed. If it was not written down, it is now a he-said-she-said in a final account meeting two years later.

Informal instructions became formal claims.

On every project, there is a category of work that happened without a proper variation order. The client asked. The contractor did. Everyone assumed it would be sorted out. It was not sorted out.

Now it is a final account item. And the client says there was no instruction. And the contractor says there absolutely was. And neither of them can find a contemporaneous document that resolves it cleanly.

This is not a legal problem. It is a contract administration problem that became a legal problem.

Every deduction that was threatened during construction reappears.

That backcharge for the scaffold the employer fixed when the contractor was slow - It is in there.

The liquidated damages that were mentioned in a letter in month eight but never formally applied - They are back.

The retention deduction for alleged defects that were never properly notified - Somehow, they made it into the draft final account.

Final account negotiations are where every threat, every grievance, and every deduction that was floated and never resolved comes back to life. Often without the evidence to support it. Sometimes without any contractual basis. But always with a number attached.

Time bars and notice failures surface here.

Contractors who did not issue notices in time - for variations, for delays, for disruption - find that their claims are challenged at the final account stage on procedural grounds, even if the substance is valid.

Employers who did not properly notify backcharges or deductions - in the manner required by the contract - find that their deductions are resisted on the same basis.

Everyone spent the project assuming the other side would not actually enforce the procedural requirements. The final account is where those assumptions are tested.

The Ghost Variations

There is a category of item in almost every final account that deserves its own heading: the variation that everyone knew about during the project but nobody properly processed.

These are dangerous because:

The work was done. It exists. You cannot un-pour the concrete.
The cost is real. It is in the contractor’s books.
But the variation order was never raised, or never signed, or was raised and disputed and then left in a drawer.

The contractor now claims it as an agreed change. The employer says it was within original scope. Both parties have a version of events that sounds plausible and neither has a signed instruction to resolve it.

Ghost variations eat final accounts alive. They turn what should be a financial reconciliation into a factual reconstruction of what happened on site, argued by people who were not there, from documents that were never designed to settle this question.

The only fix is variation control during construction: instructions issued promptly, scope agreed in writing, pricing settled before the work starts where possible, and any disputed items flagged formally at the time rather than stored for later.

The Retention Battle

Retention is a separate chapter of the final account fight, and it deserves direct attention.

Half the retention should have been released at practical completion. Sometimes it was. Often it was not - either because practical completion itself was disputed, or because the employer made deductions against it, or because the certificate was delayed while someone argued about the snag list.

The second half should be released at the end of the defects liability period, assuming defects have been properly notified and rectified. In practice, employers find reasons to hold it. The defects list stays open. The final certificate is delayed. The contractor is chasing money for work that was completed eighteen months ago.

Know your contractual entitlement. Know the trigger for release. Issue the necessary notices. Do not assume the employer will release retention without being asked, formally and in writing, at the right time.

If retention is being withheld beyond the contractual entitlement, that is a payment dispute, and it should be pursued as one - not absorbed into the general background noise of final account negotiations.

How to Approach the Final Account Properly

Start early.

Do not wait for the employer to issue a draft final account. By the time they do, the framing is theirs, the deductions are already listed, and you are playing defence.

Prepare your own final account position — every agreed variation, every claim you intend to pursue, every retention entitlement - and put it on the table first. The party that sets the agenda in final account negotiations has a structural advantage.

Audit the deductions.

Every deduction in the employer’s draft final account should be tested:

Was it properly notified under the contract?
Is it supported by a contemporaneous record?
Is there a contractual basis for the deduction — or is it a position?
Has it been quantified correctly?

Many deductions do not survive this scrutiny. They were threats made during construction that calcified into line items in a spreadsheet. Challenge them properly and early.

Separate the agreed from the disputed.

A common mistake is allowing the whole final account to remain open while parties argue about one contested item. Where items are agreed, get them agreed in writing and take them off the table. Do not let the employer hold agreed amounts hostage to disputed ones without good contractual reason.

Know your time limits.

Many contracts impose deadlines on final account submission and certification. FIDIC, for example, has specific timelines for the contractor’s statement and the engineer’s final payment certificate. Missing these deadlines may not automatically destroy your position, but it creates complications and gives the other side arguments you do not need.

Document the negotiation.

Every meeting, every position taken, every concession offered - put it in writing immediately afterwards. The final account negotiation is itself a record that may matter later. If it ends in agreement, have a formal settlement document. If it ends in dispute, the record of what was offered and rejected will matter.

When the Final Account Becomes an Arbitration

Sometimes it does. Not because the parties were unreasonable, but because the gap is too large, the underlying facts are too disputed, and neither party is willing to accept a number that looks commercially irrational.

When that happens, the quality of the project records - the variation instructions, the payment certificates, the site diaries, the correspondence about disputed items -becomes the determinative factor.

The contractor who documented the project as it happened will always be in a stronger position than the one who documented it retrospectively. The employer who notified deductions properly and on time will always defend better than one who invented them at the final account stage.

The final account is not where the dispute is won or lost. It is where the consequences of how the project was managed become financially visible.

The final account is the project’s financial reckoning. Everything that was left unresolved, every instruction that was given informally, every claim that was parked, every deduction that was threatened - it all shows up here, with interest.

The parties who handle it well are the ones who managed the project commercially from the start.

The parties who handle it badly are the ones who spent the project focused on delivery and assumed the money would sort itself out at the end.

It does not sort itself out.

It waits. Quietly. And then it sends a draft final account with a number that makes your eyes water.

Quantum of Claims

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 05:41:48 GMT

You’ve spent eighteen months building your claim. You have the emails. You have the site logs. You have the expert. The tribunal agrees — yes, the employer caused the delay. Yes, the contractor was disrupted. Yes, the variation was instructed without proper approval.

Liability: established.

And then the award comes back.

₹4.2 crore claimed. ₹38 lakhs awarded.

You won the argument and lost the money. Welcome to the quantum problem — the part of construction disputes that kills more claims than bad liability arguments ever will.

What Is Quantum, and Why Does It Get Treated Like an Afterthought?

Quantum is the how much of your claim. Liability answers did it happen and was it their fault. Quantum answers what did it actually cost you.

In theory, both matter equally. In practice, most contractors spend 80% of their energy on liability and discover, somewhere around the third hearing day, that their quantum is a smoking ruin.

This happens because quantum is harder. It requires:

real financial records, not just project files
a traceable link between the event and the cost
honest accounting for your own inefficiencies
a method that can survive cross-examination

What most claims have instead is: a spreadsheet, a formula someone copied from a previous project, and the vague hope that the tribunal will “use its judgment.”

Tribunals use their judgment when you give them nothing better. And their judgment is almost never as generous as yours.

The Three Ways Quantum Falls Apart

1. No contemporaneous cost records

This is the classic. The disruption happened in months three and four. The claim is prepared in month twenty-two. Nobody tracked which workers were idle, which equipment was underutilised, or what the actual cost per unit of work was during the disrupted period.

Instead, you get a global figure: “our costs increased by ₹6 crore during this period.” The employer’s quantum expert picks it apart in forty minutes. The tribunal gives you something for the inconvenience and moves on.

If it didn’t happen in the records, it didn’t happen in the claim.

2. The method doesn’t match the event

Different heads of claim require different methods of proof. Prolongation costs need a time-based analysis — what were your actual site overheads per month, and for how many months did you stay beyond your entitlement? Disruption costs need a productivity analysis — what were you achieving versus what you planned to achieve, and what explains the gap?

Using one method for everything is like using a flathead screwdriver on every type of screw. Sometimes it works. Mostly it just strips things.

A tribunal that is persuaded on liability will still reduce your award if the method used to calculate quantum is not appropriate for the type of loss being claimed.

3. No mitigation

You are not entitled to claim costs you could have avoided. This sounds obvious. In practice, it is the argument that wipes out a third of many claims.

“We had fifty workers on standby for six weeks because access was denied.”

“Did you consider sending them to another project temporarily?”

“Well... no.”

“Did you consider demobilising and remobilising?”

“We thought the access issue would resolve.”

“Did you document that thinking anywhere?”

Silence.

Mitigation is not just a legal obligation. It is a quantum discipline. If you cannot show that you tried to reduce your losses — and that your remaining losses were unavoidable — expect the award to shrink accordingly.

The Heads of Claim That Routinely Collapse

Head office overheads — covered in the prolongation blog, but worth repeating here: Hudson, Emden, and Eichleay are methods, not magic. If you cannot show actual overhead cost, actual underutilisation, and an actual link to this project’s delay, the formula gives you a number that the tribunal will treat with deep suspicion.

Lost profit — enormously difficult to prove. You need to show you had other work available, that you could have taken it, and that you would have made the profit you are claiming. Speculation dressed as calculation does not work.

Financing costs — possible, but only with real borrowing records. If you financed the delay through a working capital facility, show the drawdowns, the interest rate, and the period. A generic claim for “financing at X% per annum” without bank records is just a number.

Escalation in material costs — claimable in theory, but only if your contract allows for it, the escalation was caused by the delay you’re claiming for, and you have actual purchase records showing the price difference.

What Good Quantum Looks Like

Good quantum tells a story with numbers.

It starts with a baseline — here is what we planned to spend, on what, at what rate. It then shows the deviation — here is what we actually spent, supported by invoices, timesheets, and purchase orders. It explains the gap — here is why the deviation was caused by the event we are claiming for, and not by our own inefficiencies or decisions. And it demonstrates mitigation — here is what we did to keep the cost down, and here is what remained unavoidable.

Every line in the claim should survive this question: Can you take me to the document that proves this number?

If the answer is “we estimated it” or “it is a reasonable allocation” without a foundation in actual records, that line is at risk.

The Expert Problem

Most parties appoint a quantum expert. Many of those experts are good. Some of them, however, are retained late, given bad records, and asked to reverse-engineer a number the client has already decided they want.

Tribunals have seen this before. They are not easily fooled.

A quantum expert who is given clean records, engaged early, and asked to calculate what the loss actually was — rather than justify what the claim says it is — will perform better under cross-examination and produce awards that hold up.

The expert’s job is to quantify. Not to advocate. The moment it looks like advocacy, the tribunal discounts it. The moment it looks like it was calculated to a conclusion rather than from the evidence, it loses credibility fast.

ConstructHER Registration Form

The Practical Fix

Track costs during the project as if your claim depends on it — because it does.

That means:

separate cost codes for delay-related work, idle time, and additional resources
weekly or monthly snapshots of labour deployment and productivity
purchase orders, delivery records, and invoices filed against the relevant event
contemporaneous notes on why resources could not be redeployed
mitigation steps documented as decisions, not just implied by inaction

Build the quantum while the project is running, not after it ends. The records that make a claim credible are created on site, not reconstructed in a claims consultant’s office.

Liability is the door. Quantum is the room.

Getting through the door matters. But if the room is empty — if there are no records, no method, no mitigation trail, no honest accounting for your own contribution — you will walk out with a fraction of what you went in expecting.

The contractor who documents costs carefully, links them clearly to identified events, and presents them in a method that matches the nature of the claim, will always outperform the contractor who built a good liability argument and assumed the money would follow.

It does not follow. You have to lead it there.

If this resonates with you, join the ConstructHER WhatsApp network, a space for women in construction and infrastructure law to exchange ideas, share opportunities, and continue the conversation beyond this piece.

AI on Site:

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:00:47 GMT

It starts quietly.

Not in the arbitration hearing. Not in the final award.

It starts at 11:47 pm. Someone on the project team drops 2,000 pages of correspondence into a tool and says, “just tell me what we’re missing.”

Next morning, the narrative looks cleaner. The delay looks sharper. The claim suddenly feels… structured.

No one says it out loud. But AI has already entered the project.

Let’s strip the noise.

This is not about robots replacing arbitrators. It is about something far more practical.

AI is becoming the invisible junior associate on every dispute.

And right now, the contracts haven’t caught up.

What the institutions are doing is interesting. What they are not doing is more important.

On the FIDIC side, the debate has finally come out into the open. At the December 2025 conference, the industry was asked a blunt question: should AI sit inside the dispute resolution chain? Engineer. DAAB. Arbitration.

The response split right down the middle.

One camp said: “not yet.”

The other said: “everywhere.”

That tells you everything about where we are. Not resistant. Not ready. Just… cautious.

And then came the real signal. The AAA-ICDR example.

An AI arbitrator trained on around 1,500 construction awards. Used for low-value disputes. Faster outcomes. Roughly 30 percent cost savings. Human oversight still in place.

That is not science fiction. That is a pilot already on the runway.

But notice the positioning. It is not replacing judgment. It is supporting it.

That distinction will decide the next decade.

ICC has taken a different route. Less noise. More plumbing.

Instead of jumping into “AI decision-making”, they have built infrastructure. Case Connect. Centralised. Structured. Everything flowing through one digital spine.

It is like cleaning up a messy site before bringing in heavy machinery.

Because here is the truth: you cannot layer AI on chaos.

If your documents are scattered, your records inconsistent, your version control broken, AI will not fix your dispute. It will amplify your confusion.

ICC is quietly solving that first.

The guidance on how AI should be used by tribunals and counsel is still pending. Which means, again, the real decisions are happening in practice, not policy.

SIAC sits somewhere in between.

Procedurally ready. Flexible. Open architecture.

No explicit AI rulebook. But nothing stopping you either.

Which, if you’ve run disputes, you know exactly what that means.

The rules won’t save you. Your process will.

Now step back from institutions and come to site reality.

Because this is where it actually matters.

Imagine this.

The Engineer is making a determination under Sub-Clause 3.7.

The record is messy. Emails contradict site reports. Delay notices are late. Quantum is fuzzy.

Someone uses AI to reconstruct timelines, cluster documents, identify gaps.

The determination improves. Faster. Cleaner.

But here’s the uncomfortable question.

Was AI used? Was it disclosed? Does it matter?

Because if that determination is later challenged, you can already see the argument:

“Was independent judgment exercised, or was it influenced by an unverified tool?”

No contract today answers that cleanly.

Same story at DAAB level.

A member runs document analytics through AI to understand patterns.

Perfectly logical. Efficient. Probably better than manual review.

But now layer in due process.

What if the tool introduced bias? What if it filtered incorrectly? What if one party used it and the other didn’t?

No rulebook. No disclosure norm. No agreed boundary.

And then arbitration.

Quantum models built using AI. Delay analysis refined using predictive tools. Submissions drafted with machine assistance.

This is already happening. Quietly. Widely.

The tribunal may not even know.

This is where the real risk sits.

Not in AI itself. But in asymmetry.

One side uses it well. The other doesn’t. One side discloses. The other doesn’t. One side understands its limits. The other treats it like gospel.

That is where disputes will shift.

What does this look like in practice?

A contractor on a project used AI to rebuild a disrupted programme narrative from fragmented site records. The output was sharp, compelling, and internally consistent.

But under cross-examination, gaps emerged. The underlying assumptions were not fully understood by the team presenting it.

The model was strong. The ownership was weak.

The claim lost credibility, not because it was wrong, but because no one could defend how it was built.

That is the lesson most people are missing.

AI will not kill bad claims.

It will expose poorly understood ones faster.

So where does this leave project teams?

Right now, in a very familiar place.

Think of AI like early BIM days.

Everyone said they were using it. Half actually were. Very few understood it properly. Contracts lagged behind. Disputes caught up later.

Same playbook.

ConstructHER Registration Form

If you’re sitting on a live project, the practical questions are not philosophical.

They are brutally simple:

Are your teams using AI already without a protocol?
Do you know where it is influencing analysis?
Can you defend outputs if challenged?
Should your contracts start addressing disclosure?

Because sooner than you think, someone will ask in a hearing:

“Can you explain how this analysis was generated?”

And “we used a tool” will not be a sufficient answer.

AI is already on your project. The only question is whether you are managing it, or discovering it during cross-examination.

Why the 2021 FIDIC Green Book Is Taking Over Construction Contracts

Mehak Oberoi — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 05:41:39 GMT

You can always tell which contract is actually running the project.

It is not the one in the data room.
It is the one the site engineer can explain over tea at 7 pm.

On many projects, contracts run into hundreds of pages, cross-referenced like a maze, beautifully negotiated… and completely ignored on site. Notices are missed. Procedures are skipped. Claims get rebuilt months later like forensic reconstructions.

And then there are projects where a thin contract sits in the site office drawer. Slightly worn, heavily used. Everyone knows what it says. Everyone follows it.

That is exactly the space where the 2021 FIDIC Green Book is gaining ground.

Not because it is perfect.
Because it is usable.

What the Green Book really is

Strip away the positioning. The Green Book is FIDIC acknowledging a ground reality:

Most project teams cannot administer complex contracts properly.

The earlier version tried to position itself for “small works”. The market ignored that label. It was already being used on larger projects because it did one thing well. It stayed out of the way.

The 2021 version simply aligns with that reality.

It is no longer “minor works only”. It is a deliberate alternative for lower-risk projects where control is needed without heavy contract machinery.

Why complexity is losing the room

There is a long-standing belief in construction that more clauses equal better protection.

On paper, that holds.

On site, it breaks quickly.

What typically happens:

Notices are not issued because the clause is too dense to interpret in real time
Engineers prioritise progress over procedure
Commercial teams try to “catch up” months later
Claims become retrospective narratives instead of live management tools

Complex contracts assume disciplined administration.
Most projects operate in controlled chaos.

That gap is where disputes take shape.

The Green Book reduces that gap by lowering operational friction.

Design and pricing without the drama

Early confusion on projects is rarely legal. It is commercial.

Who carries design?
How is payment structured?
What happens when quantities shift?

The larger FIDIC forms answer this with different contracts.

The Green Book takes a more practical route. One structure, multiple choices.

Employer design, contractor design, or hybrid
Lump sum, remeasurement, cost reimbursable, or combinations

No need to interpret which “book philosophy” applies. The structure sits in one place.

For project teams, that clarity matters more than theoretical neatness.

The usability shift: built for the site, not the seminar

The real strength of the Green Book is not that it is shorter. It is that it is easier to operate.

Fewer clauses, but clearer triggers
Core obligations without layers of procedural sub-steps
Flow charts and template forms that mirror actual project communication

This is drafting that assumes emails will be sent from site cabins, not boardrooms.

When the process is simple, teams follow it.
When teams follow it, records improve.
When records improve, disputes shrink.

Prolongation Cost: ending the spreadsheet battles

Every delay claim eventually lands in the same place.

Overheads.
Preliminaries.
“Unabsorbed costs.”

And then the cycle begins:

Detailed cost models
Line-by-line challenges
Experts debating assumptions
Months spent arguing over numbers no one fully trusts

The Green Book cuts through this with Prolongation Cost.

A pre-agreed daily rate for employer-risk delay.

Defined upfront
Linked to project progress
Paid for each day of compensable delay

No elaborate reconstruction. No endless audits.

It does not eliminate disagreement.
It shifts the debate.

From “how much”
to
“who is responsible”

That is a far cleaner battleground.

What this looks like in practice

On interface-heavy projects, delay discussions often spiral into quantum disputes before entitlement is even settled.

Under a simplified prolongation mechanism, the conversation becomes sharper:

How many days of delay?
At what stage of completion?
Apply the agreed rate

The focus stays on causation, not cost modelling.

That alone can change the temperature of a dispute.

The quiet market shift

The traction of the Green Book reflects a broader change in the industry.

There is growing fatigue with:

Contracts that require specialist administration to function
Over-engineered risk allocation that no one consistently applies
High transaction costs without proportional benefit

The market is leaning toward contracts that can be implemented, not just negotiated.

Particularly in:

Mid-size infrastructure projects
Repeat contracting environments
Markets with limited contract management bandwidth

The shift is clear.

From “cover every scenario”
to
“run the project effectively”

Where simplicity gets misused

Simplicity works when respected.

It fails when stretched.

Common pitfalls:

Overloading the form with amendments
Importing clauses from other FIDIC books without alignment
Using it for high-risk EPC structures

At that point, the balance breaks.

A simple contract becomes a confused one.
And confused contracts generate more disputes than complex ones.

Why this matters for project teams

For employers:

Lighter administration
Faster decision-making
Reduced dependency on heavy contract machinery

For contractors:

Clearer processes
Predictable delay compensation
Less time building claims, more time delivering work

For both:

Fewer end-of-project surprises

The strongest contract is not the most detailed one.

It is the one the site team actually uses.

The 2021 Green Book is built around that idea.
That is why it is gaining ground.

ConstructHER Whatsapp

FIDIC Golden Principle 5 - Fight on Site, Not in Arbitration

Mehak Oberoi — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 05:41:35 GMT

GP5 is the only Golden Principle where FIDIC drops the polite tone.

It does not say “should”.
It does not say “best practice”.
It says this must happen.

Formal disputes must go to a DAAB or DAB first, before arbitration.

If your contract deletes the DAAB, sidelines it, or treats it as optional, FIDIC’s view is blunt: this is no longer a compliant FIDIC contract.

Why such a hard line? Because FIDIC has watched what happens when disputes are left to “later”.

Later means after completion.
Later means after teams have demobilised.
Later means after documents are scattered and memories have softened.

By then, disputes are no longer technical. They are emotional, positional, and expensive.

GP5 exists because disputes handled in real time behave differently. They stay closer to facts. They get decided by people who understand construction, not just contracts. And most importantly, they allow the project to keep moving.

On site, a functioning DAAB changes behaviour. Parties think twice before escalating. Engineers stop sitting on decisions. Claims get sharpened earlier. Weak positions die quietly instead of mutating into arbitration monsters.

When GP5 is violated, you can see it immediately.

DAAB clauses are deleted “to save cost”.
Certain disputes are carved out so they never reach the board.
Engineer determinations are declared final with no review path.

What follows is predictable. Every disagreement is stockpiled. Nothing is resolved. Everyone is “reserving rights”. And the real dispute only begins once the cranes are gone.

FIDIC’s logic here is deeply practical. Arbitration is not designed to manage live projects. It is designed to allocate blame after the fact. GP5 insists on a bridge between contract administration and arbitration, so disputes don’t jump straight from site meetings to pleadings.

There is also a quiet power balance issue at play.

Without a DAAB, the party with deeper pockets can afford to wait. GP5 levels that field by forcing issues into an early, structured decision process that is binding, even if only provisionally.

Tribunals care about this more than parties realise. When a DAAB exists but is bypassed, arbitrators often ask why. And when a contract removes DAAB access entirely, the discussion shifts from merits to whether the dispute resolution architecture itself was fair.

That is never a good detour.

The simplest way to think about GP5 is this:

If your first real decision-maker appears only after the project is over, the contract was designed to fail quietly.

And that is exactly what FIDIC is trying to stop.

Linkedin Group

Linkedin Page

FIDIC Golden Principle 4 - Time Bars Should Measure Work, Not Set Traps

Mehak Oberoi — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 05:41:38 GMT

GP4 exists because time, in construction contracts, is never neutral.

Every deadline decides who carries pressure. Every shortened window quietly shifts risk. And every “reasonable” period tells you who the contract expects to fail first.

GP4 says this plainly: all time periods in the contract must be of reasonable duration.

Not aggressive. Not aspirational. Reasonable.

FIDIC did not pick its timeframes casually. Those notice periods, response windows, certification timelines were shaped by decades of projects where someone actually had to comply with them while running a live site. GP4 protects that lived reality.

This is where drafting often drifts into fantasy.

Five-day claim notices that assume perfect information.
Two-day response periods that ignore weekends, site access, or approvals.
Three-month suspension triggers that quietly neuter a Contractor’s cash-flow leverage.

On paper, these look like “commercial positions”. On site, they are unworkable.

GP4 draws a hard line here. You can adjust timeframes only if the change still allows the affected party to realistically perform its obligation or exercise its right. If the clock is set so tightly that compliance becomes a technical miracle, the risk has already shifted and GP3 is being broken through the back door.

There is an important nuance that people miss.

FIDIC distinguishes between fixed timeframes and default timeframes. Fixed periods are meant to stay close to what the General Conditions prescribe. Default periods can be adjusted, but only within a range that still makes sense. GP4 is not anti-customisation. It is anti-ambush.

From a site perspective, GP4 violations show up early. Notices become defensive. People notify everything, even noise, just to stay alive. Administration slows because everyone is protecting themselves against a ticking clock instead of solving problems.

And from a dispute perspective, GP4 is lethal.

Tribunals are deeply sceptical of timeframes that appear designed to trigger time bars rather than enable performance. When a party argues strict compliance with an obviously impractical deadline, it often ends up defending the fairness of the contract itself instead of the facts of the claim.

That is not a comfortable place to be.

There is also a cash-flow dimension that rarely gets acknowledged. Excessively long certification or payment timelines hit Contractors exactly where it hurts most. GP4 recognises that starving cash flow is just as distortive as setting impossible notice periods.

The principle is simple and quietly powerful:

If a deadline only works in a perfect project, it does not belong in a real one.

FIDIC Golden Principle 3 - You Can’t Tilt the Table and Still Call It FIDIC

Mehak Oberoi — Tue, 17 Mar 2026 05:41:44 GMT

GP3 is the Golden Principle that makes procurement teams nervous.

It says this, very plainly: the Particular Conditions must not change the balance of risk and reward set out in the General Conditions.

Not “significantly”. Not “materially”. Not “unless commercially agreed”.
Must not change.

This is where the fiction usually begins.

Everyone insists the risk allocation is “largely the same”. Then you start reading the PCs and notice the quiet shifts. Unforeseeable ground risk quietly moved to the Contractor. Access to Site obligations diluted. Design responsibility expanded without saying the word “design”. Entitlements trimmed but obligations left intact.

Individually, each tweak looks manageable. Collectively, they rewrite the deal.

FIDIC’s position is rooted in something very old-school and very practical. Risk should sit with the party best placed to control it, foresee it, manage its consequences, and live with the result. That logic is baked into the General Conditions. GP3 exists to stop that logic being dismantled one sub-clause at a time.

On site, broken GP3 looks like this.

The Contractor is carrying risks it cannot control. The Employer is surprised by claims that feel “obvious” to the delivery team. The Engineer is stuck administering a contract that no longer reflects how the project actually works.

And then comes the line everyone uses in disputes: “This was priced in.”

GP3 is suspicious of that sentence. If the risk truly belonged with the Contractor, FIDIC would already have put it there. If you move it through the PCs, you need to own the consequences, including price, time, and behaviour.

A classic example is book shopping without admitting it. Using a Red Book, but pushing design responsibility and ground risk onto the Contractor. Or using a Yellow Book and stripping out the Employer’s obligations to provide reliable data. At that point, you are not customising. You are running a Silver Book without calling it one.

FIDIC is very clear here. If you want a different risk profile, pick the right book. Do not smuggle it in through drafting.

From a dispute perspective, GP3 is deadly serious. Tribunals look at whether the contract still reflects a fair and balanced allocation. If it doesn’t, they scrutinise drafting far more aggressively. And suddenly, the party who thought they had shifted risk finds themselves defending why the contract still deserves FIDIC treatment at all.

For project teams, GP3 matters because it shapes behaviour long before a claim is filed. Misallocated risk does not stay dormant. It changes how people price, programme, notify, and cooperate.

If the Contractor carries more risk but the price and time assumptions look the same, GP3 has already been violated.

FIDIC Golden Principle 2: If You Meant It, You Should Have Written It Properly

Mehak Oberoi — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 05:42:30 GMT

GP2 exists because too many contracts rely on a dangerous assumption:
“Everyone knows what we meant.”

They don’t. And even if they did on day one, they definitely won’t three years later when the project is late, the team has changed, and lawyers are reading the contract with a torch and a magnifying glass.

GP2 is brutally simple. Particular Conditions must be drafted clearly and unambiguously.
Not cleverly. Not creatively. Clearly.

On site, ambiguity never stays academic. It shows up as hesitation. Engineers pause before issuing letters. Contractors hedge notices. Employers argue intent instead of text. And the project starts bleeding time and trust.

FIDIC’s point here is practical, not philosophical. The General Conditions are already written to work together as a system. If you change them, you must say exactly what you changed, where, and how it interacts with the original clause.

This is where GP2 quietly exposes bad habits.

“GC clause not used.”
That single line has probably funded more arbitrations than any other sentence in construction drafting.

If you delete a clause, GP2 says you must replace it with something that covers the same ground. Otherwise you leave gaps in roles, rights, or risk. Gaps do not stay empty. They get filled by arguments.

Another classic move is burying deal changes in tender correspondence. Emails. Clarifications. Meeting minutes. Then someone adds those documents to the contract list and assumes the job is done.

It isn’t.

If it mattered commercially, it belonged in the Particular Conditions, cross-referenced to the exact General Condition it modifies, and placed clearly in the document hierarchy. GP2 is FIDIC’s way of saying: email is not drafting.

Where this really hurts is document precedence.

If you do not clearly say how the PCs interact with the GCs, FIDIC’s default precedence rules kick in. And more often than not, the General Conditions win. I have seen parties lose arguments not because their commercial position was weak, but because they never formally embedded it into the contract architecture.

From a site perspective, GP2 is about decision speed. Clear contracts get administered. Vague contracts get “discussed”. And projects that spend their lives in discussion rarely finish well.

Tribunals love GP2, by the way. Not because it is elegant, but because it gives them an anchor. When drafting is sloppy, tribunals fall back on the General Conditions and FIDIC intent. That rarely favours the party who thought ambiguity was leverage.

The uncomfortable truth is this: ambiguity usually benefits the drafter only until the dispute starts. After that, it becomes a liability.

One line to remember when reviewing Particular Conditions:

If a clause needs a meeting to explain it, GP2 says it was never clear enough.

FIDIC Golden Principle 1 - Everyone Has a Job. Stop Rewriting It Mid-Project

Mehak Oberoi — Tue, 03 Mar 2026 05:41:15 GMT

Picture this.

The Engineer sits in the meeting room, file open, fully briefed. The Contractor is waiting on a determination. Everyone knows the answer. Then comes the line that changes everything.

“I’ll need Employer approval before I issue this.”

That one sentence tells you the contract is already in trouble.

GP1 is FIDIC’s way of saying this out loud: you don’t get to quietly rewrite people’s jobs through the back door of the Particular Conditions.

FIDIC contracts work because everyone’s role is predictable. Not perfect. Predictable. The Employer funds and defines. The Contractor builds. The Engineer administers and decides. The DAAB steps in when things get sticky. Each role evolved over decades of projects that went wrong before they went right.

GP1 protects that ecosystem.

At its simplest, GP1 says this: the duties, rights, obligations, roles, and responsibilities of everyone on the project must look broadly like they do in the General Conditions and must make sense for the project you are actually building.

Two parts. Both matter.

The first part is about recognisability. If you pick up a Red Book, the Engineer must still behave like an Engineer. Not an Employer’s postbox. Not a risk firewall. Not a ceremonial title with no authority. If you strip the Engineer of independence or require Employer approval for every determination, you haven’t customised FIDIC. You’ve hollowed it out.

On site, this is what it looks like in practice. Determinations slow down. Claims stack up. Meetings multiply. Nobody trusts the process anymore because the person meant to decide cannot actually decide.

The second part is about project fit. FIDIC is blunt about this and people forget it. Not every project deserves every FIDIC book. If you choose a Silver Book for a project with half-baked Employer’s Requirements, missing ground data, and no time for proper tender risk assessment, that is not tough contracting. That is bad selection.

GP1 calls that out directly. Choosing the wrong book is not neutral. It is a breach of the Golden Principles before the ink is even dry.

Where GP1 really earns its keep is in payment and risk pressure points.

If the Employer’s financing is shaky, GP1 says that is not the Contractor’s problem. Payment obligations do not become optional just because funds are delayed upstream. And if payment fails, the Contractor’s rights to interest, suspension, and termination cannot be amputated quietly in the PCs.

We see this play out all the time. Financing gaps papered over in tender. Rights diluted in drafting. Cash flow collapses on site. Everyone acts surprised.

GP1 exists to stop that surprise.

There’s also a less obvious angle here that tribunals care deeply about. When roles are distorted, administration collapses. And once administration collapses, even a well-written contract stops working. That is when disputes stop being about clauses and start being about conduct.

The takeaway is simple and uncomfortable.

If your Particular Conditions change who decides, who carries risk, or who gets paid when, you are not fine-tuning. You are re-engineering the contract’s spine.

And FIDIC is telling you, very clearly, not to do that.

If the role descriptions need a flowchart to explain, GP1 is already broken.

The FIDIC Golden Principles

Mehak Oberoi — Tue, 24 Feb 2026 05:41:23 GMT

Everyone says they are using “FIDIC”.

Then you open the Particular Conditions and realise it is FIDIC in name, Frankenstein in execution.

Engineer can’t decide without Employer approval.
Time bars measured in days you can count on one hand.
Risk dumped where it does not belong.
DAAB quietly deleted like an unwanted appendix.

That mess is exactly why the FIDIC Golden Principles exist.

They are not decorative. They are not guidance notes. They are FIDIC’s way of saying, “If you break these, stop calling it FIDIC.”

The Golden Principles were formally published in 2019 after FIDIC realised that too many projects were gutting the General Conditions through aggressive Particular Conditions and still marketing the contract as “FIDIC-based”. The result was confusion at tender stage, chaos on site, and disputes that nobody could reverse engineer later .

So FIDIC drew a red line.

Not around clauses.
Around behaviour.

At their core, the Golden Principles protect the DNA of a FIDIC contract: fair risk allocation, clarity, workable timelines, and dispute avoidance that actually avoids disputes.

There are only five of them. That alone should tell you how fundamental they are.

First.
Everyone’s role stays recognisable.

Employer, Contractor, Engineer, DAAB. Each one keeps the job FIDIC designed them to do. You cannot quietly turn the Engineer into a rubber stamp or shift Silver Book risk into a Red Book just because it suits procurement this year.

This is FIDIC saying: choose the right book for the job. Do not force-fit risk and then act surprised when the project fights back.

Second.
Say what you mean. Clearly.

Particular Conditions are not a treasure hunt. If you change something, say it. If you delete something, replace it properly. If you agree something during tender, hard-wire it into the contract instead of relying on email chains and “commercial understanding”.

Most disputes I see here are not about interpretation. They are about ambiguity that someone thought was clever drafting.

Third.
Do not rebalance the deal after the fact.

This is the one that makes people uncomfortable.

You cannot keep the FIDIC label and quietly push risk downhill. If the General Conditions put a risk with the Employer, the Particular Conditions do not get to smuggle it across the border at night.

If you want that risk model, use the right FIDIC book. Or call it a bespoke contract and own it.

Fourth.
Time has to be human.

Notice periods, response windows, certification timelines. They exist because someone, somewhere, has actually tried to run a project with them.

Five-day claim notices and three-month suspension triggers are not “commercially robust”. They are dispute accelerators.

FIDIC’s position is blunt: if the time frame makes it practically impossible to comply, it breaks the contract’s balance.

Fifth.
Disputes must pass through a DAAB before arbitration.

This is the only Golden Principle stated without diplomacy.

No DAAB, no real FIDIC.

FIDIC is unapologetic here because experience has shown that projects without real-time dispute resolution do not get cleaner. They just get more expensive later.

DAABs are not about being nice. They are about stopping the bleed early, while people are still on site and facts are still fresh.

Why does any of this matter to project teams?

Because when Golden Principles are ignored, the damage does not show up on day one. It shows up three years later, in arbitration, when everyone argues about what the contract was supposed to mean.

By then, site teams have moved on. Emails are missing. Witnesses have selective memory. And the tribunal is left trying to reconstruct a project that never ran the way the paper said it would.

The Golden Principles are not there to protect FIDIC’s brand.
They are there to protect your project from itself.

If your Particular Conditions need explaining in a meeting, you have already broken a Golden Principle.

Idle and Standby Claims

Mehak Oberoi — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 05:41:16 GMT

Nothing kills morale faster than a fully mobilised crew with nothing to do.

Helmets on. Tools ready. Coffee finished.
And then… waiting.

Idle and standby claims are about the most frustrating cost on a project: paying people and plant to do absolutely nothing, through no fault of their own.

This is not prolongation.
This is not disruption.
This is standing there, staring at a locked gate or an unsigned permit.

Idle costs arise when resources are mobilised, available, and paid, but cannot work at all because something outside the contractor’s control hasn’t happened yet. No access. No approvals. No preceding works. No drawings that actually allow construction.

Everyone is present. Nothing is possible.

If disruption is working badly, idle is not working at all.

On real projects, idle time shows up in very ordinary ways. Access to a work front is promised but never quite arrives. A permit is “expected today” for four straight days. A specialist crew flies in and waits because an interface contractor slipped. Plant is hired, delivered, and parked neatly in a corner of the site like a very expensive sculpture.

The costs keep running even when the work doesn’t.

Idle and standby claims usually cover paid labour with zero output, hired plant and equipment on standby, specialist crews waiting for access, supervisory staff with no productive team to manage, and sometimes accommodation and logistics costs that exist purely because people are stuck on site.

This is also where contractors often get told, “Why didn’t you just demobilise?”

Which is a lovely question. In theory.

In practice, demobilising means losing your slot, missing the next window, remobilising at extra cost, and being blamed later for not being ready when access finally appears. Standing by is often the least bad option. It’s just not a free one.

Where contractors usually go wrong is mixing idle and disruption into the same story. A resource cannot be idle and inefficient at the same time. Either the crew was waiting, or it was working badly. Claiming both for the same period is the fastest way to get the whole thing discounted.

Another common mistake is claiming idle time without proving zero output. Tribunals are not interested in “very little work happened”. Idle means nothing happened. Or close enough that it might as well be nothing.

If a welder did two hours of work in an eight-hour shift, that’s not idle. That’s disruption. If they did zero because there was nowhere to weld, that’s idle.

Documentation that actually helps is wonderfully boring. Daily reports showing no access. Permits not issued. Instructions to stand by. Timesheets with paid hours and no corresponding work records. Photos of parked equipment collecting dust. Emails saying “please remain on standby”.

What doesn’t help is claiming standby after the fact because “everyone knows we were waiting”. Tribunals don’t pay for vibes. They pay for records.

When idle claims succeed, they are narrow, uncomfortable, and precise. Short periods. Clear reasons. No overlap with other cost heads. No attempt to stretch standby into weeks when it was really days.

Paid to wait is fair. Paid to exaggerate is not.

If you can show paid resources, zero output, and no contractor fault, idle claims can be brutally effective. If you mix them with disruption, prolongation, or feelings, they’re usually the first thing to go.

Handover Phase

Mehak Oberoi — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 10:48:59 GMT

Winning the Tender and Dropping the Baton

Quality and Re-performance Costs

Mehak Oberoi — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 05:41:20 GMT

Everything looks fine.
Until it doesn’t.

Quality issues rarely announce themselves politely. They surface during inspection, testing, commissioning, or worst of all, after everyone thought the work was “done”.

And that’s when the real cost starts.

Quality and re-performance costs are not about delay. They’re about doing work again that should have worked the first time, and paying for every step of that second lap.

If prolongation is the cost of staying longer, and disruption is the cost of working worse, re-performance is the cost of undoing and redoing.

On real projects, these costs show up in very practical ways. Components fail inspection and have to be dismantled. Welds are rejected and re-welded. Equipment is removed, repaired offsite, brought back, reinstalled, and tested again. Inspectors return. Certifiers return. Transporters return. Everyone returns, except the original budget.

What sits under this bucket is usually very clear when you see it on site. Rectification work. Re-inspection and re-testing. Dismantling and reinstallation. Re-transport of repaired components. Temporary works to support rework. Sometimes extended warranties or additional support because confidence has been shaken.

These are event costs. They exist because something went wrong. Not because time passed.

That distinction matters more than people realise.

A very common mistake is trying to push re-performance costs into prolongation just because the quality issue caused delay. That feels logical. It’s also wrong.

Ask the simplest question again:
“Would this cost exist even if the programme somehow survived?”

If the answer is yes, it’s not prolongation.
Re-inspection and re-transport costs exist even if you finish on time. They belong with quality, not time.

Another mistake is treating quality costs as self-evident. “The work failed, obviously it cost money.” True. But tribunals don’t pay for obvious. They pay for proof of repetition.

They want to see that the activity was done once, rejected, and done again. That inspectors came twice. That equipment moved twice. That testing was repeated. Not assumed. Shown.