FIDIC vs NEC: Why Contractors Keep Making the Same Mistakes
Updated: 2 days ago
By Roman Bazelchuk | NEC Accredited Project Manager | APMG Project Planning and Control
Founder, NEC Planning Solutions Ltd
FIDIC vs NEC comes down to what each contract tests. NEC4 assesses change largely as a forecast, with delay measured on the Accepted Programme at the dividing date. FIDIC has the Engineer determine claims on contemporary records, after a Notice of Claim within 28 days. Contractors strong on one tend to fail on the other.
The usual comparison treats NEC and FIDIC contracts as alternatives, chosen on familiarity or on which has the more favourable provisions, as if they were two versions of one mechanism. They are not. Each rewards a different organisational capability in the contractor that holds it. A contractor that switches between them without switching capability fails in predictable ways: an NEC contractor on a FIDIC job sees its claims rejected for want of records, and a FIDIC contractor on an NEC job sees its programme go unaccepted while the Project Manager assesses its compensation events.
This article sets out what each contract tests, then where the difference shows up for the programme and the planner, clause by clause, under the FIDIC 2017 Red Book and NEC4, with JCT alongside for UK teams. It closes with how contractors that work under both make the switch deliberately. It is written for delivery directors, commercial leads, planners and bid teams who work across NEC and FIDIC, or who are moving into one of them for the first time.
FIDIC references are to the second edition of the Red Book, published in 2017 and reprinted with amendments in 2022. Two related guides go further: what FIDIC Sub-Clause 8.3 requires of the programme, and what changes for a contractor moving between JCT and NEC.
What NEC is actually testing in a contractor
The usual description of NEC lists what it requires: an Accepted Programme under clause 31, regular revisions under clause 32, compensation events notified within eight weeks under clause 61.3, and quotations within three weeks under clause 62. These are the surface mechanics. The description is accurate, but it misses what the mechanics test.
NEC tests the contractor's capability to run a continuous programme dialogue with the Project Manager. The contract assumes the programme is a live document that the contractor maintains, the Project Manager reviews, and both use as the shared reference for decisions about time and money. Early warning under clause 15 (clause 16 in NEC3), assessment under clause 63 and the Project Manager's own assessment under clause 64 keep that dialogue current, and work against the contractor that lets it lapse.
So the capability under test is not technical sophistication in programme analysis, although that helps. It is the operational discipline to keep the programme live and to engage the Project Manager about it continuously. A contractor with that discipline runs NEC well because it is doing what the contract rewards. A contractor without it struggles, because the contract's mechanisms depend on the dialogue being live.
The guide to NEC clause 31 programme acceptance covers the acceptance dialogue, what a clause 32 revision needs to show covers the discipline that keeps the programme current, and the NEC4 compensation event time bar covers the procedure that protects entitlement. Each depends on the same capability: a programme dialogue kept as an organisational habit.
The contractor that treats NEC as a contract that needs more paperwork has misread it. NEC does not need more paperwork than FIDIC. It needs more continuous dialogue, and the paperwork is a consequence of the dialogue, not its purpose.
What FIDIC is actually testing in a contractor
FIDIC is also usually described through its mechanics: the Engineer's role under the Red Book, the Notice of Claim within 28 days (Sub-Clause 20.1 in the 1999 books, 20.2.1 in the 2017 edition), the fully detailed claim that follows, and the substantiation the Engineer expects. Again these are the surface. The test underneath is different from the one many contractors prepare for.
FIDIC tests the contractor's capability to build evidence-led claims from a complete contemporary record. The contract assumes the project will be administered through formal communications (Notices, instructions, certificates and claims), that the Engineer will agree or determine matters on the evidence each Party submits, and that disputes about time and money will be argued in writing on documents. Its decisions turn on the quality of the evidence.
So the capability under test is not operational dialogue, although communication still matters. It is the organisational discipline to produce, keep and use a complete contemporary record. A contractor with that discipline runs FIDIC well because it can substantiate the positions it takes. A contractor without it struggles, because the contract decides on evidence and entitlement shrinks where the evidence is missing.
The 2017 edition makes the duty explicit. Sub-Clause 20.2.3 requires the claiming Party to keep the contemporary records needed to substantiate a claim, and defines them as records prepared or generated at the same time as, or immediately after, the event. Site diaries, daily resource records, photographs, RFIs, instructions, minutes, programme updates, progress reports, quality and weather records and correspondence form the evidence a FIDIC claim is built on. Records assembled once a claim becomes necessary make a weaker claim than records kept as a daily discipline, whether or not anyone expects a claim.
On EU-funded FIDIC work the bar is higher again, because the records have to satisfy a funding audit as well as the Engineer. The FIDIC extension of time guide sets out what an acceptable programme and a defensible claim contain.
The contractor that treats FIDIC as needing less day-to-day administration has misread it too. FIDIC does not need less administration than NEC. It needs different administration, spread across the project rather than concentrated at submission points, and it shows up as records discipline rather than programme dialogue.
The reframe: two capabilities, not one shared mechanism
Once the two capabilities are named, continuous programme dialogue for NEC and a complete contemporary record for FIDIC, the failure modes become predictable.
A contractor strong on NEC tends to fail on FIDIC because it has built its organisation around the programme dialogue: an active planning function, a collaborative relationship with the Project Manager, a current programme and an up-to-date compensation event log. On a FIDIC job it underinvests in records, because NEC taught it that the dialogue stands in for documentation. When a claim is needed a year in, the records are not there, the Engineer decides on the limited evidence available, and the contractor concludes that FIDIC is harder than NEC. The real issue is the capability it never built.
A contractor strong on FIDIC fails on NEC in the mirror pattern. Its site diaries are thorough, its document control well developed and its evidence captured systematically. On an NEC job it underinvests in the programme dialogue, because FIDIC taught it that records can stand in for continuous engagement. Six months in, the programme is months out of date, compensation events are piling up without quotations, and the Project Manager is assessing them under clause 64. The contractor concludes that NEC is harder than FIDIC, when the issue is again the capability it never built.
Experienced commercial directors learn to spot the pattern early. Deploying the wrong capability is a common source of trouble when a contractor switches between the two forms, and a preventable one, because the switch can be seen coming and the disciplines each contract needs are well documented.
NEC vs FIDIC in practice: where the differences show up
The two capabilities show up at specific moments in delivery, and most of those moments run through the programme. Table 1 sets the FIDIC 2017 Red Book and NEC4 side by side on the points that decide time, with the JCT Standard Building Contract alongside for UK teams. The sections after it take each point in turn, from the planner's side.
Point | FIDIC 2017 Red Book | NEC4 ECC | JCT SBC 2016 and 2024 |
Programme required | Initial programme within 28 days of the Notice of the Commencement Date, with the contents Sub-Clause 8.3 lists, logic links, float and critical paths among them | First programme within the period in the Contract Data, unless one is identified there, with the contents clause 31.2 lists | Master programme as soon as possible after the contract is entered into, with critical paths only where the Contract Particulars require them (2.9.1.2) |
Review | The Engineer may give a Notice of non-compliance within 21 days; silence is a deemed Notice of No-objection (8.3) | The Project Manager accepts it or gives reasons within two weeks. A failure to reply, once the Contractor notifies it, is treated as acceptance if it continues for one more week (31.3) | No acceptance or review step |
Status | Not one of the documents forming the Contract (1.5), but the Contractor proceeds in accordance with it, subject to its other obligations (8.3) | The Accepted Programme current at the dividing date is the reference for assessing delay (63.5) | Imposes no obligation beyond the Contract Documents (2.9.3) |
Revisions | Whenever it ceases to reflect actual progress or is otherwise inconsistent with the Contractor's obligations; the Engineer's review period is 14 days (8.3) | At no longer interval than the Contract Data states, when the Project Manager instructs, or when the Contractor chooses (32.2) | Within 14 days of a decision fixing a later Completion Date or of agreeing a Pre-agreed Adjustment (2.9.2) |
Warning of problems | Advance warning by each Party of known or probable events that may delay the Works or increase the Contract Price, with no express sanction (8.4) | Early warnings by the Contractor and the Project Manager, with a register and meetings (15). Once the Project Manager notifies that an experienced contractor could have given a warning the Contractor missed, the event is assessed as if it had been given (61.5, 63.7) | No early warning procedure. The nearest are the notice of likely delay (2.27) and a duty to notify matters likely to cause a dispute, optional in 2016 (Schedule 8) and standard in 2024 (9.1) |
Notice of delay or change | Notice of Claim within 28 days of awareness (20.2.1), a time bar moderated by 20.2.2 and 20.2.5; fully detailed Claim within 84 days (20.2.4) | Within eight weeks of becoming aware that the event has happened (61.3), except events arising from the Project Manager's or Supervisor's own instruction, notification, certificate or changed decision | Forthwith once delay to progress becomes reasonably apparent (2.27). Lateness does not stop a later Completion Date being fixed (2.28.5). Loss and expense needs its own notice (4.21) |
Who decides, and how fast | The Engineer: 42 days to reach agreement after the fully detailed Claim, then 42 to determine; a Claim not determined in time is deemed rejected (3.7) | The Project Manager replies to a quotation within two weeks (62.3), or assesses the event itself (64) | The Architect or Contract Administrator, within 12 weeks of the required particulars (2.28.2). Under the 2024 edition: 14 days to ask for further particulars and 8 weeks to decide (2.27.4, 2.28.2) |
Delay measured against | Whether completion is or will be delayed by a listed cause; no method is prescribed (8.5) | Planned Completion on the Accepted Programme current at the dividing date (63.5) | Whether completion is likely to be delayed beyond the Completion Date by a Relevant Event (2.28) |
Concurrent delay | Under the rules in the Special Provisions of the Particular Conditions or, if none are stated, as appropriate taking due regard of all relevant circumstances (8.5) | No express rule | No express rule |
Delay damages | Delay Damages at the daily amount in the Contract Data, up to the maximum stated there, claimed by the Employer under 20.2 (8.8) | Under Option X7, at the Contract Data rate from the Completion Date until the earliest of Completion, take over and, since October 2020, the date of the Project Manager's termination certificate. Without X7, proven loss as general damages | Liquidated damages at the Contract Particulars rate, after a Non-Completion Certificate and the Employer's notice (2.31, 2.32) |
Table 1: FIDIC vs NEC on time and the programme, with JCT alongside, clause by clause
Programme submission and review
Under NEC4 the first programme goes in within the period the Contract Data states, unless one is identified there, with the contents clause 31.2 lists. The Project Manager accepts it or gives reasons within two weeks, and acceptance is normally a positive act: clause 31.3 lists the reasons for refusing it. Where no programme is identified in the Contract Data, a quarter of the Price for Work Done to Date is retained until a first programme showing the required information is submitted (50.5).
Under FIDIC 2017 the initial programme is due within 28 days of the Notice of the Commencement Date, and Sub-Clause 8.3 sets its contents, including logically linked activities with their earliest and latest dates, float and critical paths. The Engineer reviews by exception. If no Notice of non-compliance comes within 21 days, the Engineer is deemed to have given a Notice of No-objection, and that version becomes the Programme. It is not one of the documents forming the Contract, but the Contractor proceeds in accordance with it, subject to its other obligations.
The difference is in the default. Under NEC4, silence leads to acceptance only after the Contractor notifies the failure and one more week passes. Under FIDIC, silence for 21 days is a No-objection. An NEC team waiting for an acceptance letter on a FIDIC job is waiting for something the contract does not require. The FIDIC programme guide takes each requirement of Sub-Clause 8.3 in turn.
Programme revisions
NEC4 sets a rhythm. A revised programme goes to the Project Manager for acceptance at no longer interval than the Contract Data states, when the Project Manager instructs, and whenever the Contractor chooses (32.2). Under clause 32.1 it shows, among other things, actual progress and its effect on the remaining work and how the Contractor plans to deal with delays. Each acceptance moves the reference point, and the delay from each compensation event is measured on the Accepted Programme current at the dividing date (63.5).
FIDIC 2017 sets a condition instead of a clock. The Contractor submits a revised Programme whenever the Programme ceases to reflect actual progress or is otherwise inconsistent with its obligations, and the Engineer has 14 days to give a Notice of non-compliance (8.3). The Engineer can also give Notice that the Programme no longer complies, which obliges a revision. The monthly progress report under Sub-Clause 4.20 compares actual with planned progress, so a Programme that has drifted from the site shows there first. Where progress is too slow, or has fallen behind the Programme, for reasons outside Sub-Clause 8.5, the Engineer may instruct a revised programme showing how the Contractor will expedite (8.7).
A FIDIC team that freezes the first Programme as a baseline and reports against it falls short of Sub-Clause 8.3 as soon as the site departs from it.
Warnings before the problem lands
NEC4 makes early warning a shared, managed process. The Contractor and the Project Manager each notify the other of any matter that could increase the total of the Prices, delay Completion or a Key Date, or impair the performance of the works in use. The Project Manager keeps an Early Warning Register, first issued within one week of the starting date, and early warning meetings are held no further apart than the Contract Data interval (15). The process has consequences: where the Project Manager has notified that the Contractor did not give an early warning an experienced contractor could have given, the event is assessed as if it had been given (63.7). The early warning register guide shows how to make it reduce delay.
FIDIC 2017 turned advance warning into a mutual duty with its own Sub-Clause, 8.4. Each Party advises the other and the Engineer of known or probable future events that may adversely affect the work of the Contractor's Personnel or the performance of the Works when completed, increase the Contract Price, or delay the Works, and the Engineer may ask the Contractor for a proposal to avoid or reduce the effects. There is no time limit and no express sanction. Its weight shows later. When the Engineer decides under Sub-Clause 20.2.5 whether a late Notice of Claim should still be treated as valid, the other Party's prior knowledge of the event is one of the circumstances that may be taken into account, and an advance warning on file is evidence of exactly that.
Notifying change and claiming time
NEC4 runs time and money through one event. Where the Contractor has to notify a compensation event, it does so within eight weeks of becoming aware that it has happened, or the Prices, the Completion Date and the Key Dates do not change. Events arising from the Project Manager's or the Supervisor's own instruction, notification, certificate or changed decision are outside that bar (61.3). A quotation follows within three weeks of the instruction to submit one, with the proposed changes to the Prices and any delay to the Completion Date and Key Dates, and alterations to the Accepted Programme where the programme for the remaining work is altered (62.2, 62.3). The Project Manager replies within two weeks, and silence for a further two weeks after the Contractor notifies the failure is treated as acceptance (62.6).
FIDIC 2017 separates the claim from its proof. The Contractor gives a Notice of Claim no later than 28 days after it became aware, or should have become aware, of the event (20.2.1). The 28 days are a time bar, but a moderated one: if the Engineer does not give Notice within 14 days that the claim notice was late, it is deemed valid (20.2.2), and even after such a Notice, the Engineer's agreement or determination can treat a late Notice as valid where the late submission is justified (20.2.5). The fully detailed Claim follows within 84 days, with the contemporary records relied on and a statement of the contractual or other legal basis (20.2.4). Missing that statement puts the Notice of Claim itself at risk. Where the event has a continuing effect, the first claim is interim and further interim claims follow monthly (20.2.6). Time for a Variation is the exception: no 20.2 claim is needed (8.5).
For the planner, the difference is where the work sits. Under NEC it is mostly a forecast, built quickly from a current programme. Under FIDIC it is a case, built from records within a fixed timetable.
Assessing delay
NEC4 measures delay against a document. Delay to the Completion Date is the time by which planned Completion moves on the Accepted Programme current at the dividing date (63.5), and since the January 2019 amendments the assessment also takes into account any delay the event has already caused in that programme, and events that have happened between that programme's date and the dividing date. Where there is no Accepted Programme, or the Contractor has not submitted a programme or alterations to a programme that the contract requires, the Project Manager uses its own assessment of the programme (64.2).
FIDIC 2017 asks a wider question. Subject to Sub-Clause 20.2, the Contractor is entitled to an extension where completion is or will be delayed by one of the causes Sub-Clause 8.5 lists: a Variation, a cause giving entitlement under another Sub-Clause, exceptionally adverse climatic conditions, Unforeseeable shortages of personnel or Goods caused by epidemic or governmental actions, or delay caused by the Employer, the Employer's Personnel or the Employer's other contractors. The contract does not prescribe a delay analysis method. The Programme with the Engineer's No-objection is the natural starting point, and the claim is proved from the records.
Concurrent delay is where FIDIC 2017 says more than the other two. Where a delay that is the Employer's responsibility runs concurrently with one that is the Contractor's, the extension is assessed under the rules in the Special Provisions of the Particular Conditions or, if none are stated, as appropriate taking due regard of all relevant circumstances (8.5). NEC4 and JCT say nothing, so the answer comes from the general law and any amendment the parties have made. The methods, from impacted as-planned to time slice windows, are compared in the NEC delay analysis and extension of time guide.
Records and reports
Records carry weight under both forms, in different places. Under FIDIC 2017 the Engineer may monitor the Contractor's record-keeping and instruct it to keep additional contemporary records (20.2.3), and the monthly progress report under Sub-Clause 4.20 sets actual against planned progress, with the measures being taken to overcome delays, so it doubles as the narrative of the job.
Under NEC4 the revised programme carries most of the narrative (32.1). Records still matter: a compensation event's effect on the Prices is assessed from the actual Defined Cost of work done by the dividing date, the forecast Defined Cost of work not yet done and the resulting Fee (63.1), and under Options C to F the Project Manager can inspect the accounts and records the Contractor keeps (52.4). The case for reporting faster than the monthly cycle is made in why monthly progress reports arrive too late.
Delay damages
NEC4 has delay damages only where Option X7 applies, at the rate in the Contract Data from the Completion Date until the earliest of Completion, take over and, since the October 2020 amendments, the date of the Project Manager's termination certificate. Without X7 the Client can still claim its proven loss as general damages. FIDIC 2017 sets Delay Damages at the daily amount in the Contract Data, up to the maximum stated there, and the Employer claims them through Sub-Clause 20.2 like any other claim (8.8). JCT SBC ties liquidated damages to a Non-Completion Certificate and the Employer's notice (2.31, 2.32). What each of JCT and NEC requires before a deduction is set out in JCT vs NEC liquidated damages.
Disputes
The dispute routes differ in their steps. Under NEC4, Option W1 sends a dispute to the Senior Representatives before adjudication. Option W2, used where the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 applies, lets either party refer a dispute to adjudication at any time, and Option W3 provides a standing Dispute Avoidance Board where the Act does not apply. FIDIC 2017 runs through the Engineer first: agreement or determination under Sub-Clause 3.7, a Notice of Dissatisfaction within 28 days or the determination becomes final and binding, then a referral to the Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board within 42 days of that Notice, amicable settlement and arbitration (21). The Parties can also ask the standing board jointly for informal help before a disagreement becomes a dispute (21.3). Each FIDIC step is a deadline, and each is met with documents.
At each of these points the capability being deployed differs. The contractor that brings NEC habits to a FIDIC job produces dialogue where the contract expects evidence. The contractor that brings FIDIC habits to an NEC job produces records where the contract expects dialogue. Both failures are preventable.
PLANNER'S TAKEAWAY On a FIDIC job, revise the Programme whenever the site departs from it, file each revision with the progress report that explains it, and keep every advance warning on record. On an NEC job, submit revisions at the Contract Data interval and get them accepted, because each compensation event's delay is measured on the Accepted Programme at the dividing date. |
Good practice when switching contracts
The contractors that switch well treat the change of capability as a deliberate discipline rather than something that happens on its own. Five practices set them apart.
Capability assessment at bid stage
Before bidding, the contractor assesses which capability the contract form will need and confirms that the team it will deploy has it. An NEC bid going to a team used to FIDIC is flagged for strengthening: more planning resource, programme dialogue training and NEC quotation templates. A FIDIC bid going to a team used to NEC is flagged the other way: records infrastructure, claim templates and a review of document control.
Mobilisation set up for the contract
During mobilisation the controls system, document management, meeting cadence and reporting are set up for the capability the contract needs. On NEC that means the programme dialogue infrastructure: a first programme built to clause 31.2, the revision rhythm, the compensation event clock and the early warning register. On FIDIC it means the records infrastructure: a Programme built to Sub-Clause 8.3 with its logic, float and critical paths, site diaries, a photographic protocol, a monthly report that meets Sub-Clause 4.20, and records filed against the programme activities they support.
Leadership matched to the contract
The senior commercial lead on an NEC project benefits from being a strong dialogue manager, at ease with continuous engagement and able to use the contract's mechanisms as conversation rather than confrontation. On a FIDIC project the lead benefits from being a claims strategist, at ease with formal procedure and able to assemble evidence-led submissions over long periods. The profiles differ, and stronger contracting organisations match the lead to the contract rather than assuming any senior commercial leader can run any form.
Reporting that matches the contract
NEC reporting looks forward: the programme position, compensation event forecasts and the likelihood of meeting Key Dates. FIDIC reporting also looks back: Notices given, claims pending, determinations awaited and records captured. Each produces different information for different decisions.
External support matched to the contract
Contractors that use specialist support match it to the capability being deployed. NEC support concentrates on programme dialogue, acceptance and compensation event administration. FIDIC support concentrates on claims preparation, time impact analysis and evidence assembly. Where the mismatch is found on a live project, the capability can be rebuilt mid-project rather than at the next mobilisation, and specialist NEC programme support covers the NEC side of that recovery.
NEC Planning Solutions analyses delay and extensions of time under NEC, JCT and FIDIC, built from the native programme files and the project records. On one FIDIC job, it built the logic-linked baseline programme, kept the change register that quantified the programme impact of design changes, and reported progress weekly. See delay and extension of time analysis and the case study.
The honest answer to "which contract is better for contractors"
Contractors comparing NEC and FIDIC often ask which is better for them, and the honest answer is that the question is wrong.
NEC is better for contractors that have built, or are willing to build, a continuous programme dialogue. The contract rewards it with timely recovery of change, predictable commercial outcomes and collaborative relationships. The contractor without it finds NEC difficult, not because the contract is bad but because it is running a contract designed for a capability it has not invested in.
FIDIC is better for contractors that have built, or are willing to build, a complete contemporary record. The contract rewards it with claims that succeed, positions that hold in disputes and the ability to work across jurisdictions under comparable conditions. The contractor without it finds FIDIC difficult for the same reason.
NEC is widely used on UK public sector and infrastructure work, and the market around it, from project managers to planners and trainers, is built for it. FIDIC is widely used on international projects, including many funded by development banks, and the engineers, claims specialists and arbitrators around it know it well. A contractor's main market usually decides its main form.
For contractors working across both, the answer is to build both capabilities and deploy them deliberately. That discipline separates contractors that move comfortably between UK and international work from those that operate well in only one.
The author's view
In my view the 2017 edition moved FIDIC closer to NEC on the programme than many contractors have noticed. Sub-Clause 8.3 now asks for a logically linked programme with float and critical paths, a revision whenever it stops reflecting actual progress, and a review that becomes a deemed No-objection if the Engineer stays silent for 21 days, or 14 on a revision. Sub-Clause 8.4 adds advance warning. A planner trained on NEC already works this way.
What the NEC habit does not supply is the record. Under NEC a planner can lean on the Accepted Programme and the forecast in a quotation. Under FIDIC the claim has to be proved from records made at the time, and the 28-day and 84-day periods run whether or not the team is ready. So I would put an NEC-trained planner on a FIDIC job and give that planner a records discipline from the first week: every revision filed with the progress report that explains it, every warning on file, and every delay event tied to the activities it affects. That combination is what I would want behind a claim for time under either form.
FIDIC vs NEC: the practical summary for contractors
The usual FIDIC vs NEC comparison lists different procedures, terminology, notice periods and claims routes. That is accurate at the surface and misses the point. The two contracts reward different organisational capabilities: NEC a continuous programme dialogue kept as an operational habit, FIDIC a thorough contemporary record kept as an organisational discipline.
At clause level the difference runs through the programme. NEC4 accepts a programme and measures the delay from each compensation event on the Accepted Programme at the dividing date. FIDIC 2017 reviews the Programme by exception, requires a revision whenever it stops reflecting progress, and decides claims on contemporary records within fixed periods: 28 days for the Notice of Claim, 84 for the fully detailed Claim, and 42 plus 42 for the Engineer.
Contractors that switch without switching capability fail in predictable ways, in both directions. Those that treat each project as a capability decision, identifying the form early and matching people, processes, reporting and support to it, avoid both failures. The useful question is not which contract is better, but which capability the contractor is building and which contract tests for it.
If your firm is used to FIDIC and is now bidding for UK work, our page for European contractors covers what else changes, from registering for public work to how social value is scored.
FIDIC vs NEC: frequently asked questions
Is NEC or FIDIC better for contractors?
Neither is better in any absolute sense. NEC rewards contractors that have built a continuous programme dialogue with the Project Manager. FIDIC rewards contractors that keep a complete contemporary record. NEC is widely used on UK public sector and infrastructure work and FIDIC on international projects, so a contractor's main market usually decides its main form. Contractors working across both need both capabilities, deployed deliberately.
What is the difference between FIDIC and NEC for programme management?
Under NEC4 the Project Manager accepts the programme or gives reasons within two weeks (31.3), revisions come at least as often as the Contract Data states, and delay is measured on the Accepted Programme at the dividing date. FIDIC 2017 reviews by exception: the Engineer's silence for 21 days, or 14 on a revision, is a deemed No-objection, and the Programme is revised whenever it stops reflecting actual progress (8.3).
How do NEC compensation events differ from FIDIC claims?
An NEC4 compensation event the Contractor must notify is notified within eight weeks of becoming aware it has happened (61.3), then quoted within three weeks of the instruction to quote, time and money together, with delay measured on the Accepted Programme at the dividing date. A FIDIC 2017 claim needs a Notice of Claim within 28 days and a fully detailed Claim within 84 days, built on contemporary records.
Does FIDIC have early warnings like NEC?
FIDIC 2017 has advance warning under Sub-Clause 8.4. Each Party advises the other and the Engineer of known or probable events that may delay the Works, increase the Contract Price, or adversely affect the work or the completed Works. Unlike NEC4 clauses 15 and 63.7, it has no register, meetings or express sanction, though a warning on file can later show the other Party's prior knowledge under Sub-Clause 20.2.5.
Why do contractors who are strong on NEC tend to struggle when they move to FIDIC?
Because they have built their organisation around the programme dialogue NEC rewards and underinvest in the contemporary records FIDIC requires. Dialogue habits do not replace records made at the time of each event. Claims then fail for want of substantiation, not because the contractor lacks technical capability, but because it never built the FIDIC capability alongside the NEC one.
What capability should contractors prioritise if they work across both contract regimes?
Both, deployed deliberately. Contractors that run both forms well treat each project as a capability decision rather than an extension of their default operating model. They identify the contract form early, confirm which capability it needs, and match people, processes, reporting and external support to it. That is what lets a contractor move between UK and international work without repeating the same mistakes.
Who can review a contractual claim for compliance with JCT, FIDIC or NEC?
An independent planner or claims consultant who works on all three forms and reads programme and contract together. It checks each notice against its deadline: eight weeks under NEC4 clause 61.3, 28 days under FIDIC 2017 Sub-Clause 20.2.1, and, under JCT, forthwith for time (2.27) and, for money, as soon as the likely effect on progress is or should be apparent (4.21). Then it tests the records behind the claim.
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.
Arrange a consultation
Running an NEC job with FIDIC habits? We will pin down where they are costing you and what to change. The first consultation is 30 minutes with Roman Bazelchuk, Director, confidential, with no documents needed in advance. Email info@necplanningsolutions.co.uk or call 0330 223 7709. Our compensation event support is set out here.
