FIDIC 1999 vs 2017: Clause Mapping for Programme and Claims
By Roman Bazelchuk | NEC Accredited Project Manager | APMG Project Planning and Control
Founder, NEC Planning Solutions Ltd
Set FIDIC 1999 vs 2017 side by side and most of what changed is a clause number. Extension of time moved from 8.4 to 8.5, contractor's claims from 20.1 to 20.2, determinations from 3.5 to 3.7. A handful of changes are more than renumbering, and they sit around the programme and the claim clock.
The trouble is not the new edition. It is that procedures, notice templates and claim precedents written for 1999 are still circulating, and a notice citing Sub-Clause 8.4 for an extension of time on a 2017 contract is citing the advance warning provision instead. Citing the wrong clause is one of the more avoidable ways to weaken an otherwise sound claim.
The table below maps the provisions that govern a contractor's programme and its claims. It is the FIDIC counterpart to the NEC3 to NEC4 clause mapping, and it exists for the same reason: the substance mostly survived the renumbering, and the exceptions are where the money is.
FIDIC 1999 vs 2017 clause mapping
The mapping covers commencement, the programme, extension of time and the claims machinery. Where a provision is genuinely new rather than moved, that is stated.
Provision | 1999 | 2017 | What changed |
Commencement of Works | 8.1 | 8.1 | Notice of the Commencement Date not less than 14 days beforehand. The 28 days to submit the initial programme runs from receipt of it. |
Programme | 8.3 | 8.3 | Same number, much more content. The 2017 list has eleven items against four, adding among others the access dates, the review periods, logic, float and the critical path, key delivery dates and, in a revision, actual progress. |
Programming software | not specified | 8.3 | The programme is prepared in the software the Specification names, or the Employer's Requirements in the Yellow Book, so much of the real obligation sits outside the General Conditions. |
Engineer's review of the programme | 21 days | 8.3 | 21 days on the initial programme and 14 on a revision, where 1999 gave 21 days on any programme. Silence is now a deemed Notice of No-objection. |
Programme as a defined term | not defined | 1.1.67 | Programme now means a programme that has received a Notice of No-objection, given or deemed. |
Advance warning | 8.3, Contractor only | 8.4 | Now a Sub-Clause of its own, and mutual: each Party advises the other and the Engineer, and the Engineer advises the Parties. Neither edition sets an express sanction. |
Extension of Time | 8.4 | 8.5 | Renumbered. The five grounds are retained and Employer-Supplied Materials is added to the unforeseeable shortages ground. |
Extension arising from a Variation | notice required | 8.5 | A claim notice is no longer required where the extension arises from a Variation. |
Concurrent delay | silent | 8.5 | Applies the rules the Special Provisions set out. If they set none, the delay is assessed as is appropriate in all the relevant circumstances. |
Contractor's claims | 20.1 | 20.2 | Restructured into a single procedure covering both parties, with more prescribed steps. |
Employer's claims | 2.5 | 20.2 | Pulled out of Clause 2 and into the same procedure as the Contractor's, including the same notice period. |
Notice of Claim | 20.1, 28 days | 20.2.1, 28 days | The 28 days from awareness is unchanged. |
Late Notice of Claim | barred | 20.2.2 | The Engineer has 14 days to give a Notice that it was late. Without one, the Notice of Claim is deemed valid. With one, lateness can still be found justified under 20.2.5. |
Fully detailed Claim | 20.1, 42 days | 20.2.4, 84 days | Longer period, and considerably more prescriptive about what the submission must contain. |
Engineer's determination | 3.5 | 3.7 | More prescriptive process with explicit neutrality language and its own time limits at 3.7.3. |
Dispute board | Clause 20, DAB | Clause 21, DAAB | A standing Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board, with an avoidance role added to the adjudication one. |
The changes that are more than a renumbering
Four stand out. The programme review windows in Sub-Clause 8.3 are new, and with them the deemed Notice of No-objection: 21 days on the initial programme, 14 on a revision, and silence produces the defined Programme. That mechanism, and what it means in practice, is set out in what Sub-Clause 8.3 actually requires.
Advance warning at Sub-Clause 8.4 is easily confused with the old extension of time clause that used to carry that number. In 1999 the warning sat in Sub-Clause 8.3 and bound the Contractor alone. In 2017 each Party advises the other and the Engineer, and the Engineer advises the Parties, of known or probable future events. Neither edition sets an express sanction for a missed warning, but a warning on file can matter later, when what the Employer knew is in question.
The late Notice of Claim is the change most worth knowing. Under 1999 a notice given outside 28 days simply barred the claim. Under 2017 the Engineer has to give notice that the Notice of Claim was late, and if that notice does not come, the Notice of Claim is deemed valid. A claim that would have died under the old edition can survive under the new one through the reviewer's inaction, though the Employer can still dispute the Notice when the claim is agreed or determined.
And concurrency changed from silence to a signposted gap. Sub-Clause 8.5 now tells the parties to deal with it in the Special Provisions and, failing that, to assess taking due regard to all relevant circumstances. That is not a rule, and on funded work where the evidence bar is already higher, it is where an argument usually starts rather than ends.
If your procedures are written to 1999
Three checks, and they take an afternoon. Search every notice template, procedure and claim precedent for Sub-Clause 8.4 and establish which meaning is intended, because on a 2017 contract the number now belongs to advance warning. Do the same for 20.1, which on a 2017 job is no longer the contractor's claims clause.
Then check what the contract in front of you actually is. Many projects run amended 1999 conditions, and plenty run 2017 conditions with Particular Conditions that pull provisions back toward the older form. The edition on the cover is a starting point rather than an answer, and the Special Provisions on concurrency in particular are worth reading before you need them.
Finally, diarise the periods that are new. The 21 and 14 day programme review windows, and the 84 days for the fully detailed Claim. The 28 day Notice of Claim has not moved, and it remains the provision that decides more claims than any other, which is the same structural point as the compensation event clock under NEC.
The view from the desk
The 2017 edition is often described as more onerous on the contractor, and on the claims procedure that is fair. There are more steps and more periods to miss. But the same edition also gave the contractor two provisions that work in its favour, and both operate on the other side's inaction.
Silence on a programme submission produces a Programme. Silence on a late Notice of Claim produces a deemed valid Notice, though the Employer can still dispute it. Both reward a contractor who tracks the other party's deadlines as carefully as its own, which almost nobody does. The instinct on a FIDIC job is to watch your own clock. The edge is in watching theirs, and it is the same instinct that separates the contractors who recover from the ones who run good jobs and lose the argument anyway.
My position is that the mapping should live on the wall of the commercial office, not in a folder. It takes one wrong clause reference in one notice to hand the other side a procedural point, and that happens most often not through ignorance but through a template nobody updated.
Summary
Extension of time moved from 8.4 to 8.5, contractor's claims from 20.1 to 20.2, employer's claims from 2.5 into the same procedure, determinations from 3.5 to 3.7, and the DAB became a standing DAAB under Clause 21. The 28 day Notice of Claim did not move.
The genuinely new provisions are the deemed Notice of No-objection on the programme, mutual advance warning at 8.4, the Engineer's obligation to flag a late Notice of Claim, and the signposting of concurrency to the Special Provisions. Two of those four favour the contractor, and both depend on the other side missing a deadline.
Download the clause map and the clock
The mapping above on one printable page, with the six periods worth diarising alongside it: the 28 day Notice of Claim, the 21 and 14 day programme review windows, and the 84 days for the fully detailed Claim. Free, direct download, no sign-up.
FAQ
What is the FIDIC 2017 equivalent of Sub-Clause 8.4?
Extension of Time moved from Sub-Clause 8.4 in 1999 to Sub-Clause 8.5 in 2017. The number 8.4 was reused for advance warning, now a Sub-Clause of its own, so a notice citing 8.4 on a 2017 contract is citing the wrong clause. It is an easy error to make in notices drafted from old templates.
Did the 28 day claim notice period change in 2017?
No. The Notice of Claim is still required within 28 days of the claiming party becoming aware, or when it should have become aware, of the event. What changed is the number, from 20.1 to 20.2.1, and the consequence of being late: the Engineer must now give notice that the Notice of Claim was late, failing which it is deemed valid.
What are the new programme review periods under FIDIC 2017?
The Engineer has 21 days after receiving the initial programme, and 14 days after receiving a revised programme, to give a Notice stating how far it fails to comply. If no Notice is given within that period, the Engineer is deemed to have given a Notice of No-objection and the submission becomes the defined Programme.
How does 2017 deal with concurrent delay?
It sets a route rather than a rule. Sub-Clause 8.5 applies the rules the Special Provisions set out for concurrent delay, and where they set none, the delay is assessed as is appropriate in all the relevant circumstances. The 1999 edition was silent, so the change is from no signpost to a signpost with a fallback.
Which edition applies to my contract?
Check the contract rather than the year of the project. Amended 1999 conditions remain widespread, and 2017 conditions are frequently issued with Particular Conditions that pull individual provisions back toward the older form. Read the Particular Conditions and the Special Provisions before relying on any general mapping, including this one.
About the author
Roman Bazelchuk is the Founder of NEC Planning Solutions Ltd, a UK project planning and controls consultancy supporting contractors with NEC programme compliance, compensation event assessments and live project controls. He is an NEC Accredited Project Manager and holds the APMG Project Planning and Control qualification, with a BEng in Mechanical Engineering and postgraduate training in Planning and Control.
NEC Planning Solutions provides contract-aware planning support through a QA-governed delivery model, helping project teams keep programmes accepted, current and commercially useful from tender through to live delivery.
Notices still written to the 1999 numbering?
NEC Planning Solutions aligns programme and claim procedures to the edition actually in force, sets the review and notice periods against a calendar, and keeps the record straight on both sides of the contract.
