FIDIC Time Clauses
Last reviewed 9 September 20262,654 words12 min read
What the Red, Yellow and Silver Books actually say about the programme, progress, extensions and damages — 1999 beside 2017
🟩 In one line: FIDIC gives the programme one clause (8.3), the extension one clause (8.4 in 1999, 8.5 in 2017), the notice one clause (20.1 / 20.2.1) and the determination one clause (3.5 / 3.7) — the planner's job is to know the four, the 28-day clock, and the dozen other clauses that create the delay events those four process.
👤 Who this is for: Mid-level planners on a FIDIC contract; senior planners writing the programme section of the claim. Prerequisites: Notice-requirements-and-records, Extension-of-time-basics, Milestones-and-key-dates.
First, let's be honest about why this page exists
Most planners on FIDIC jobs have read Clause 8.3 once and Clause 20.1 never. They know there is a 28-day notice period because someone told them, they do not know that the programme is required to be revised whenever it is inconsistent with progress, and they are surprised in the claim to learn that the Engineer's determination has its own timetable.
This page is the planner's map of the time provisions — what the contract says the programme must contain, when it must be revised, what starts the clocks, and where 2017 differs from 1999. It is a reference; the argument pages are Extension-of-time-basics, Time-impact-analysis and Concurrent-delay. Always read the Particular Conditions: Gulf employers amend almost all of these.
🟨 The standard — what "good" looks like
Opening comparison — what each form requires of the programme (paraphrased; verify per edition)
| Requirement | FIDIC 1999 (Red/Yellow/Silver) | FIDIC 2017 (Red/Yellow/Silver) | NEC3/NEC4 ECC (for contrast) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial programme due | Within 28 days of Commencement notice (Cl 8.3) | Within 28 days of Commencement notice (Cl 8.3) | With tender or within period in Contract Data (Cl 31.1) |
| Required content | Order and timing; stages; nominated subcontractors; inspections and tests; supporting report with methods and personnel/equipment estimates (Cl 8.3(a)–(d)) | Adds: Commencement Date, Time for Completion, access dates, review periods, sequence of Employer-caused delays, delivery of Plant/Materials, critical path where the Employer's Requirements ask, supporting report with more detail (Cl 8.3 sub-paragraphs — verify) | Cl 31.2 list: Key Dates, Completion Date, planned Completion, order/timing, float, TRA, health and safety, resources, information required from Others |
| Employer's response | Engineer notifies non-compliance within 21 days, otherwise Contractor proceeds (Cl 8.3) | Engineer gives Notice of non-compliance within 21 days; otherwise deemed compliant / Contractor proceeds (Cl 8.3 — verify wording) | PM accepts or gives reasons within 2 weeks (Cl 31.3) |
| Status | Programme is a contractual document the Contractor proceeds in accordance with; not "accepted" | Same; "Programme" is a defined term (check against your copy) | Accepted Programme is a defined term with contractual effect |
| Revision | Revised programme whenever the previous is inconsistent with progress or obligations (Cl 8.3) | Same, plus revision on Engineer's notice; 2017 wording on when a revised programme is required (check against your copy) | Revised programme at Contract Data interval, when instructed, when Contractor chooses (Cl 32.2) |
| Rate of progress | Engineer may require revised programme and methods if progress too slow; Contractor bears cost (Cl 8.6) | Same (Cl 8.7) | No equivalent; acceleration by agreement only (Cl 36) |
🟢 Rule: under FIDIC the programme is the Contractor's document that the Engineer may object to; it is revised when out of step with reality; and every extension runs through notice under Cl 20 and determination under Cl 3 — the programme alone gives no entitlement.
How it actually works
1. The time clauses, mapped.
| Topic | 1999 | 2017 | What it does for the planner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commencement | 8.1 — notice ≥ 7 days; commence within 42 days of Letter of Acceptance (Red) (check against your copy) | 8.1 — similar with defined Commencement Date (check against your copy) | Day zero of the Time for Completion and of the 28-day programme window |
| Time for Completion | 8.2 — whole Works and each Section by the Time for Completion, including Tests on Completion | 8.2 — same | The FOoB dates on contractual milestones |
| Programme | 8.3 | 8.3 | Content, submission, revision (table above) |
| Advance warning | — | 8.4 — each Party advises the other of known probable future events affecting work, price or time (check against your copy) | A written record that is not a claim notice, but supports one |
| Extension of Time | 8.4 — five heads: (a) Variation or substantial quantity change; (b) cause of delay under a Sub-Clause; (c) exceptionally adverse climatic conditions; (d) unforeseeable shortages caused by epidemic or governmental actions; (e) delay by Employer or its personnel/other contractors; subject to Cl 20.1 | 8.5 — similar heads with wording changes; adds paragraph on concurrent delay: rules and procedures as stated in the Special Provisions, otherwise "as appropriate taking due regard of all relevant circumstances" (check against your copy) | The list every delay event is classified against |
| Authority delays | 8.5 | 8.6 | Unforeseeable delay by public authorities = EOT event |
| Rate of progress | 8.6 | 8.7 | Engineer's slow-progress notice; recovery without prejudice |
| Delay damages | 8.7 — per day, capped per Appendix; sole remedy for delay except termination | 8.8 — same structure | Sectional damages per milestone |
| Suspension | 8.8–8.12 | 8.9–8.13 | Suspension as a scheduled event with resumption |
| Delayed drawings/instructions | 1.9 | 1.9 | Employer information = INTERFACE-IN milestone with needed-by date; late = EOT + Cost |
| Right of access | 2.1 | 2.1 | Access dates = SOoA milestones |
| Unforeseeable conditions | 4.12 | 4.12 | Ground-condition events |
| Employer's Plant/Materials | 4.20 (1999 free-issue) | 2.6 (2017 — verify) | INTERFACE-IN milestones |
| Tests on Completion delayed by Employer | 9.2, 10.3 | 9.2, 10.3 | T&C chain events |
| Variations | 13.1–13.3 | 13.1–13.3 (13.3.1 procedure with time proposal) | Variation → fragnet → TIA; 2017 requires the Contractor's proposal to include time impact |
| Claims | 20.1 | 20.2 (20.2.1 notice; 20.2.4 fully detailed claim) | The clocks |
| Determination | 3.5 | 3.7 (42 days to agree, 42 to determine — verify) | The Engineer's timetable |
| Force majeure / exceptional events | 19 | 18 | EOT, and Cost in defined cases |
| Taking over | 10.1–10.3 | 10.1–10.3 | What ends the Time for Completion |
2. The clocks.
| Clock | 1999 | 2017 | Consequence of missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice of claim | 28 days from when the Contractor became aware or should have become aware (Cl 20.1) | 28 days (Cl 20.2.1) | 1999: entitlement lost. 2017: Notice deemed lapsed unless the Engineer disagrees within 14 days or the DAAB / Engineer finds otherwise (check against your copy) |
| Contemporary records | Keep as necessary; Engineer may inspect (Cl 20.1) | Same (Cl 20.2.3) | Claim unsupported |
| Fully detailed claim | 42 days from awareness, or as agreed (Cl 20.1) | 84 days (Cl 20.2.4 — verify) | 2017: notice lapses unless statement of contractual basis given in time (check against your copy) |
| Interim claims | Monthly for continuing events (Cl 20.1) | Monthly (Cl 20.2.6 — verify) | Gap in the record |
| Engineer's response | 42 days from receipt of claim (Cl 20.1) | 42 days to agree, then 42 to determine under Cl 3.7 (check against your copy) | Deemed rejection (2017) opens dispute route |
| Programme objection | 21 days from receipt (Cl 8.3) | 21 days (Cl 8.3) | Contractor proceeds in accordance with the programme |
| Variation proposal | As soon as practicable (Cl 13.3) | Within the period the Engineer states (Cl 13.3.1 — verify) | Variation may be instructed anyway |
3. What the planner does with this, month by month.
| Trigger | Planner's action |
|---|---|
| Any event on the list in table 1 | Register entry the day it is known; draft notice to the contracts manager within 7 days so it goes out inside 28; fragnet in a Reflection of the last accepted update |
| Revised programme required (Cl 8.3) | The monthly update is the revised programme; transmittal says so; baseline unchanged unless EOT awarded |
| Cl 8.6 / 8.7 letter | Recovery plan from Reflections, options table, "without prejudice to entitlement under Cl 8.4 / 8.5" in the reply |
| EOT award letter | Contractual milestone FOoB moved to the new date; register row; baseline revision per Revised-baseline-vs-recovery-schedule |
| Determination (Cl 3.5 / 3.7) | Diary the 42-day dates; if silent, the contracts manager decides the next step |
| Sectional completion | Float reported at each Section; damages exposure per Section in the internal pack |
4. Reading the Particular Conditions. Gulf amendments commonly: shorten the notice period below 28 days (sometimes 14); require the programme in a named format and software; make the Engineer's approval of the programme a condition; delete the concurrent-delay paragraph in 2017 and replace it with a "no EOT where Contractor is concurrently in delay" provision; extend the Engineer's response times; add float-ownership wording. The planner reads the PCs against this page's table and marks every difference in SBM section 2.
📜 Two points that decide more claims than the analysis method
- Notice is a condition. Under 1999 Cl 20.1 the wording is that the Time for Completion is not extended and the Contractor is not entitled to additional payment if notice is late; 2017 softens the edge slightly with the lapse-and-disagreement mechanism, but the 28 days remain the pivot. The planner's contribution is a dated event register and a fragnet ready in time — not the letter itself.
- The programme is not the entitlement. A programme showing negative float against the contractual milestone proves nothing on its own. Entitlement comes from an event under Cl 8.4 / 8.5, noticed under Cl 20, demonstrated by a method the Engineer accepts, and determined under Cl 3.5 / 3.7. The programme is the evidence, and the last accepted update before the event is the base the evidence is built on.
🟥 Where people go wrong
- Treating "no objection in 21 days" as acceptance. The Contractor proceeds in accordance with the programme, but the Engineer has not approved it and can still argue its content. Baseline discipline comes from the register and the written acceptance letter you ask for, not from silence.
- Waiting for the fully detailed claim to send the notice. Notice is 28 days; the detail is 42 (1999) or 84 (2017). Two letters, two clocks. The notice can be one paragraph.
- Moving the contractual milestone on a promise. "The Engineer has said he'll grant the EOT." Until the award letter, the FOoB stays and the float is negative with a sentence.
- Confusing Cl 8.6 recovery with acceleration. A recovery plan under Cl 8.6 is at the Contractor's cost unless the delay is the Employer's; the recovery plan must say "without prejudice" or it reads as an admission.
- Ignoring Cl 1.9 and Cl 2.1 as milestones. Late drawings and late access are the two commonest Employer delay events, and neither is in the programme as a dated milestone, so there is no baseline to measure against. INTERFACE-IN milestones with document references.
- Reading the General Conditions only. The Particular Conditions have changed the notice period to 14 days and the planner is working to 28. PCs first, every time.
- Sectional damages ignored. Float reported at the whole Works while Section 1 is 30 days late and carrying daily damages. Every Section is a milestone with its own float line.
⚖️ When you're challenged
"The Engineer never objected to the baseline, so it's approved, right?" Under 8.3 it means we proceed in accordance with it and the Engineer didn't find it non-compliant within 21 days. It isn't an approval in the NEC sense. We asked for and got a written acceptance naming the revision and data date, which is what the register relies on.
"We'll put the notice in with the claim next month." The notice clock is 28 days from awareness and it's a condition of entitlement under 20.1. The event was 19 days ago. The notice is one paragraph; the claim can follow within 42 days. I've drafted it.
"Why can't the programme just show the extended date? The delay is obviously the Employer's." Because the extension doesn't exist until the Engineer determines it under 3.5. The programme shows the contract date with negative float and one sentence pointing to claim C-007; when the award comes, the milestone moves and the baseline is revised. Showing it early would be read as agreeing the date was never binding.
"2017 says concurrent delay is dealt with in the Special Provisions. There aren't any. So what applies?" Then the clause says the Engineer decides 'as appropriate taking due regard of all relevant circumstances'. Our position is on the concurrent-delay page — three tests, float paths shown. That's a legal question the contracts manager owns; the schedule shows the paths.
📄 Related pages
- Notice Requirements and Records — the clocks and the event register in full
- Extension of Time Basics — how an EOT is built from these clauses
- Time Impact Analysis — the method most Engineers ask for under Cl 8.4 / 8.5
- Concurrent Delay — the 2017 Cl 8.5 paragraph in practice
- Milestones and Key Dates — Sections, access and information milestones
- NEC Accepted Programme — the contrast form
- SCL Protocol summary — the Protocol's position on programme, float and notice
- Redirect: what-the-contract-says-about-the-programme is absorbed into this page's opening comparison table
✏️ Worked example — Abu Dhabi residential tower AUH-RT14, event register extract (FIDIC 1999 Red, PCs: notice 28 days retained; programme in P6 required)
| Event | Date aware | Clause | Notice due | Notice sent | Fragnet | Interim | Detailed claim due | Determination due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Late IFC drawings, podium transfer beams | 04-Feb | 1.9 / 8.4(b) | 04-Mar | 20-Feb (N-011) | FR-011 in Reflection of Upd06 | Monthly from 25-Mar | 18-Mar | 42 d from receipt | Detailed claim 14-Mar; determination pending |
| Utility relocation by authority (unforeseeable) | 22-Apr | 8.5 / 8.4(b) | 20-May | 08-May (N-014) | FR-014 | — | 03-Jun | — | EOT 11 days determined 09-Jul; MS-230 moved; BL1 raised |
| Engineer's slow-progress notice | 15-Jun | 8.6 | — | Reply 26-Jun | Recovery R-1 (Reflection) | — | — | — | Reply "without prejudice to Cl 8.4"; R-1 in progress |
| VO-022 additional roof plant | 03-Aug | 13.3 / 8.4(a) | 31-Aug | 21-Aug (N-019) | FR-022 | — | 14-Sep | — | Proposal with time 8 wd submitted; awaiting instruction |
Each row's fragnet lives in its own WBS node in a Reflection of the last accepted update; each notice references the dated register entry; each award moves one contractual milestone and raises one baseline revision.
📖 References
- FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction (Red), Plant and Design-Build (Yellow), EPC/Turnkey (Silver), 1999: Cl 1.9, 2.1, 3.5, 4.12, 4.20, 8.1–8.12, 9.2, 10.1–10.3, 13.1–13.3, 19, 20.1 (check the edition in your contract)
- FIDIC Red, Yellow and Silver Books, 2017: Cl 1.9, 2.1, 2.6, 3.7, 4.12, 8.1–8.13, 9.2, 10.1–10.3, 13.1–13.3, 18, 20.2 (check the edition in your contract)
- NEC3 / NEC4 ECC, Cl 31.1–31.3, 32.2, 36 (for comparison; verify)
- SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd ed. (2017), Core Principles on programme and notice (check against your copy)
- Oracle Primavera P6 Professional User Guide — Constraints; Reflections (check against your P6 version)
General guidance, not legal advice. Contract wording, editions and amendments differ on every project. Read your own contract and take professional advice before relying on anything here in a claim or a dispute.
From the field
Experience from working planners. Unreviewed — read it as experience, not guidance.
Add what you know about fidic time clauses. What worked, what the consultant pushed back on, what you would do differently next time. A paragraph is plenty.
Contributors get their name and one link on the site — your own templates, course or consultancy. We take nothing and hold nothing.
Add your experience