Delay and Disruption

Construction Law, Contract Administration, Project Management

Telling a Contractor to Speed Up: The Instruction Employers Keep Getting Wrong

By Dr Samer Skaik

A project falls behind. The Employer becomes anxious. Somebody suggests that the Engineer should instruct the Contractor to accelerate, and a letter goes out.

What happens next depends entirely on a distinction that is rarely drawn at the time the letter is written, and the cost of getting it wrong runs in both directions. I have seen Employers believe they had purchased acceleration when they had bought nothing at all, and I have seen Contractors treat a routine progress instruction as a blank cheque and spend accordingly.

The provision at the centre of this is Sub-Clause 8.6 in the 1999 editions, renumbered 8.7 in 2017. It is worth being precise about what it does, because it is almost the opposite of what people assume. …

Construction Law, Contract Administration, Dispute Boards, Project Management

The Programme Nobody Agreed To: Sub-Clause 8.3 and What Silence Actually Means

By Dr Samer Skaik

Ask three people on a FIDIC project what status the programme has, and you will usually get three answers.

The planner thinks it is a management tool. The contractor’s commercial manager thinks it is the baseline against which every delay claim will eventually be measured. And the Engineer, if pressed, will often say that it was never approved, which is a curious thing to say about a document the whole project has been working to for two years.

All three are partly right, and the confusion is not their fault. Sub-Clause 8.3 is one of the shortest provisions in the contract carrying one of the heaviest practical loads, and it does not answer the question everyone actually wants answered: is this thing binding? …

Scroll to Top