NEC vs FIDIC

Practical Differences for Contractors on Programme, Reporting and Compensation Events

For contractors delivering engineering and construction projects in the UK and internationally, the choice between NEC and FIDIC isn’t just a legal technicality – it changes how you plan, report and secure entitlement to time and money. Programme requirements, reporting expectations and the way changes are valued all work differently under each form. If you treat them the same, you increase the risk of rejected programmes, weakened claims and avoidable disputes.

NEC vs FIDIC: Why They Feel So Different on Site

NEC – a live management contract NEC3 and NEC4 are designed as management tools as much as contracts. They emphasise collaboration, early warnings and a continually updated programme used to manage risk in real time.

For contractors, this means: 

• More frequent programme submissions and updates 

• Strong focus on early warning, forecasting and mitigation 

• Compensation events assessed using the Accepted Programme 

FIDIC – an engineering and documentation-heavy approach FIDIC contracts are more traditional and engineering-led.

They rely on: 

• Formally approved baseline programmes 

• Clear notice and claims procedures 

• Detailed written substantiation for time and cost 

In practice, FIDIC tends to feel more claims-driven, while NEC feels more management-driven. 

What this means for you as a contractor 

• Under NEC, you win or lose commercially on the quality of your live programme and early engagement. 

• Under FIDIC, you win or lose on the strength of your evidence, notices and claims documentation. 

Getting that mindset right is the first step. 

Programme Requirements: NEC vs FIDIC in Day-to-Day Planning

NEC: The Accepted Programme is king 

Under NEC, the programme is a contractual tool: 

• You must submit a compliant programme for acceptance, not just information. 

• It must be fully logic-linked (typically in Primavera P6), with clear critical path, float and time risk allowances. 

• It should reflect scope, constraints, access, interfaces and risk. 

• It is updated regularly, often monthly, and becomes the benchmark for assessing compensation events. 

If the programme is vague, incomplete or not updated, the Project Manager may refuse to accept it. That hurts you in three ways: 

• It undermines your position on compensation events. 

• It increases the risk of disputes about entitlement to time and money. 

• It makes it harder to demonstrate good project control and win future work. 

FIDIC: Approved baseline plus controlled change

Under FIDIC (especially the Red Book), the programme is still essential, but its role is slightly different: 

• The Contractor submits a detailed programme for the Engineer’s approval. 

• Once approved, it becomes the baseline for monitoring progress and assessing extensions of time. 

• Updates are required, but the contract usually puts more emphasis on claims procedures than on collaborative programme acceptance cycles. 

If the programme is rejected or not updated, you can often still pursue claims, but you’ll need strong supporting documentation – progress records, site diaries, RFIs, instructions and so on. 

Practical implications for planners and PMs 

• On NEC, your planner is a front-line commercial player. The programme is used to forecast the impact of change and agree entitlement early. 

• On FIDIC, your planner is a key witness, providing the technical backbone for claims and time-impact analysis. 

Reporting & Communication: Collaboration vs Formality

NEC: Transparent, high-frequency reporting

NEC encourages visible, real-time management. That typically means:

• An early warning register that is actually used, not just filed

• Regular risk and progress meetings tied to the Accepted Programme

• Clear records of programme acceptance / non-acceptance

• Ongoing forecasts of completion and key dates

• A live compensation event log linked back to programme changes

  
  

The flipside: if you do not raise early warnings or maintain the programme properly, it can be argued that delay and cost could have been avoided.

FIDIC: Formal communication via the Engineer

FIDIC centres communication through the Engineer or Employer’s Representative:

• Notices, claims and responses follow formal procedures and time limits

• Monthly reports and progress updates are structured and documented

• Site instructions, variations and approvals form a key part of the evidence trail

• Much of the negotiation happens through written submissions, not just progress meetings

For contractors, a robust document control system is critical under FIDIC – emails, letters, site instructions, meeting minutes and RFIs must all be captured and indexed.

Compensation Events vs Claims: Where Money Is Won or Lost 

NEC: Compensation Events (CEs)

Under NEC, change is usually managed through Compensation Events: 

• Events are notified early, often by both Parties. 

• Time and cost are assessed based on forecast impact, not simply on what was eventually spent. 

• Assessments must be consistent with the Accepted Programme. 

• If deadlines for notification or submission are missed, entitlement can be reduced or lost entirely.

Done well, this gives contractors early clarity on time and money. Done badly, it leads to under-valued CEs, rejected quotations and lost margin.

FIDIC: Claims and time–cost entitlement

Under FIDIC: 

• You typically have 28 days to give notice of a claim and a further period to submit particulars (depending on edition and amendments). 

• Claims must be backed by contemporaneous records – daily logs, correspondence, photos, programmes, lab results, etc. 

• The Engineer assesses and determines the claim, sometimes with dispute resolution to follow.

  
  

Where NEC rewards proactive forecasting, FIDIC rewards evidence-heavy, well-structured claims. 

Common Mistakes Contractors Make Under Each Contract 

Typical NEC mistakes 

• Treating NEC like FIDIC or JCT – waiting until the end to argue about delay and money. 

• Submitting programmes that are not fully logic-linked, missing risk allowances or not aligned to Scope. 

• Poor early warning discipline – issues are raised late or informally. 

• Compensation event quotations based on rough numbers rather than P6-driven forecasts. 

• Not recording the history of programme acceptance and reasons for non-acceptance.

Typical FIDIC mistakes 

• Missing or weak notices of claim within time limits. 

• Baseline programme not reflecting the actual construction methodology. 

• No consistent system for site records and document control. 

• Claims submitted as long narratives with little logical structure or insufficient evidence. 

• Leaving delay analysis to the very end of the project.

Working Across Both: Practical Strategies for Contractors

Many contractors now deliver work under NEC, FIDIC and JCT across different projects and clients.

To stay in control:

1 Build contract-specific planning standards 

Create clear internal standards for: 

• NEC programmes (Accepted Programme requirements, CE modelling approach, early warning workflows) 

• FIDIC programmes (baseline approval standards, update frequency, time-impact analysis method) 

Use Primavera P6 templates tailored to each form, rather than “one generic schedule fits all”. 

2 Align reporting with contract expectations 

• Under NEC, emphasise forecast reporting and CE impact – show how change affects key dates and Completion. 

• Under FIDIC, build claims-ready dashboards – highlight events, notices, evidence status and pending determinations.

3 Treat records as part of your commercial strategy 

Regardless of form: 

• Keep contemporaneous records of progress, resources, access issues, instructions and constraints. 

• Make sure your programme tells the same story as your records – misalignment is a red flag in any dispute. 

• Train site managers and supervisors to understand why records matter commercially, not just technically.

Where NEC Planning Solutions Fits In

At NEC Planning Solutions, we support contractors working under NEC, FIDIC and JCT with: 

• Primavera P6 programme development aligned to the chosen contract form 

• Programme reviews focused on NEC acceptance and FIDIC approval 

• Creation and management of compensation event impact programmes under NEC 

• FIDIC delay analysis and claim preparation, including time-impact and windows analyses 

• Contract-specific reporting packs that speak the language of your Client, Engineer or Project Manager 

• Integrated planning and controls to support tender programmes, live project delivery and dispute resolution

We also bring a unique social value dimension. Through our Social Value Programme we train and deploy highly capable planners from underutilised talent pools (including refugees and others facing barriers to employment), helping clients meet Procurement Act 2023 and ESG expectations while strengthening their project controls capability. 

When you bring us in, you’re not just hiring a planner – you are strengthening your programme, your commercial position and your social value story in one move.

Practical Next Steps for Contractors

If you’re a contractor currently working, or planning to work, under NEC or FIDIC: 

1. Review your current programmes – are they truly contract-compliant, or just “good enough to build from”? 

2. Map your processes – do your notices, meetings and reports match NEC or FIDIC expectations? 

3. Identify risk hotspots – live projects with weak programmes, unvalued CEs or unresolved claims. 

4. Bring in specialist support early – it’s far cheaper to fix weak planning and controls now than during a dispute. 

If you’d like an independent view of your programmes and controls, we can provide a focused review and action plan – from tender stage right through to final account.

FAQ: NEC vs FIDIC for Contractors

Q1: Is NEC or FIDIC better for contractors? 

It depends on your strengths. NEC rewards proactive planning and early engagement, while FIDIC rewards strong documentation and claims preparation. Contractors who invest in both planning and record-keeping can succeed under either.

Q2: Do I need a different Primavera P6 approach for NEC and FIDIC? 

Yes. NEC programmes should be built to support acceptance and CE impact assessments, while FIDIC programmes should be tailored for baseline approval and forensic delay analysis. One generic P6 template rarely works well for both. 

Q3: How do compensation events under NEC compare to claims under FIDIC? 

NEC compensation events are forecast-based and linked tightly to the Accepted Programme. FIDIC claims are typically evidence-based, focusing on actual time and cost, backed by detailed records and formal procedures.

Q4: Can a specialist planning consultancy really improve my tender scores? Yes. Under both NEC and FIDIC-based procurements, clients increasingly expect a credible programme, narrative and risk approach at tender stage. This can directly influence technical and social value scoring, especially under the UK Procurement Act 2023.