Planning advice for contractors

Most of what changed between the 1999 and 2017 FIDIC conditions is a clause number. The problem is the templates that were never updated: on a 2017 contract, a notice citing Sub-Clause 8.4 for an extension of time is citing the advance warning provision instead.

FIDIC does not ask anyone to approve the programme. It asks the Engineer to review it, and gives a period in which to object. Let the period pass and a Notice of No-objection is deemed given, so the defined Programme exists whether anybody meant to create one or not. This guide covers what Sub-Clause 8.3 of the 2017 books requires, how the review works, and when and how the programme is revised.

A FIDIC extension of time is decided on the programme and the records. This guide takes the 2017 Red and Yellow Books from the planner's side: the Sub-Clause 8.5 grounds and what each carries, the Notice of Claim and fully detailed Claim under 20.2 with the Engineer's 14 days and the late-submission review, the 42 plus 42 days under 3.7, concurrent delay, the programme evidence that wins the days, and what an EU grant adds on funded work.

Most construction delivery teams still rely on fragmented spreadsheets, scattered emails and static PDF reports that take hours to compile and rarely tell the full story. The Contractor Performance Dashboard consolidates everything a Project Manager, Planner, QS or Site Manager needs into one coherent view: live SPI tracking, plan-versus-actual S-curves, structured obstacle logs, work-pack variance, four-week lookahead and compensation event evidence.

FIDIC vs NEC is not about which contract is better. NEC tests a contractor's programme dialogue, FIDIC its contemporary records. This guide compares the FIDIC 2017 Red Book and NEC4 clause by clause on programme review, revisions, warnings, notices, delay assessment and delay damages, with JCT alongside, and shows where contractors moving between the two forms go wrong.