{"id":5817,"date":"2026-07-14T04:09:58","date_gmt":"2026-07-14T04:09:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/blog\/must-the-engineer-quantify-a-claim-not-substantiated-by-the-contractor-the-limits-of-determination-under-fidic\/"},"modified":"2026-09-02T03:51:29","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T03:51:29","slug":"must-the-engineer-quantify-a-claim-not-substantiated-by-the-contractor-the-limits-of-determination-under-fidic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/blog\/must-the-engineer-quantify-a-claim-not-substantiated-by-the-contractor-the-limits-of-determination-under-fidic\/","title":{"rendered":"Must the Engineer Quantify a Claim Not Substantiated by the Contractor? The Limits of Determination Under FIDIC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n

This article examines whether, under the FIDIC framework (2017 Red Book), the Engineer must quantify the effects of a claim when the Contractor has failed to provide the technical information necessary to substantiate it, either because it did not submit a revised or updated Programme or because the time impact analysis submitted is deficient.<\/p>\n\n

To that end, it analyzes the Contractor’s obligations regarding updates to the Programme and the submission of a fully detailed claim, as well as the limits of the Engineer’s role when the information submitted is insufficient to substantiate the claimed effects.<\/p>\n\n

Absence of a Revised or Updated Programme<\/h3>\n\n

When the Contractor does not submit a revised or updated Programme, the Engineer is not required to quantify the claimed effects on the Contractor’s behalf.<\/p>\n\n

Sub-Clause 8.3 requires the Contractor to submit a revised programme whenever it ceases to reflect the actual progress of the Works or becomes inconsistent with its contractual obligations.<\/p>\n\n

This position is supported by the FIDIC Guide (commentary on Sub-Clause 8.3):1<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

\n\n\n

“As the Works proceed, the Contractor must review and resubmit to the Engineer a revised version of any programme previously submitted, including the Programme, whenever either of the following circumstances arises:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2192 that programme has become outdated because it no longer reflects actual progress or, for any other reason, has become inconsistent with the Contractor’s obligations under the first paragraph of this Sub-Clause; or<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2192 the Engineer\/Employer issues a Notice stating that the programme does not, to the extent indicated, comply with the requirement to reflect actual progress or to be consistent with the Contractor’s obligations, also under the first paragraph of this Sub-Clause.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With regard to references to “actual progress,” it should be noted that the Contractor’s performance may be either behind or ahead of what was anticipated in a programme or in the Programme. Accordingly, the obligation to revise and resubmit a previously submitted programme or the Programme itself does not arise only when the Contractor’s progress is behind schedule.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The requirements applicable to each revision of the Programme are the same as those governing the initial programme.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

In addition, Sub-Clause 8.7 expressly provides that, if actual progress is too slow or has fallen behind the Programme, the Engineer may instruct the Contractor to submit, under Sub-Clause 8.3, a revised programme describing the methods it proposes to adopt to expedite progress and complete the Works within the contractual time.<\/p>\n\n

This position is supported by the FIDIC Guide (commentary on Sub-Clause 8.7):2<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

\n\n\n

“There is little point in the Contractor carrying out the Works in accordance with a programme that is so outdated as to be virtually useless. Accordingly, the provisions of the first paragraph of this Sub-Clause entitle the Engineer\/Employer to instruct the Contractor to revise and resubmit the Programme whenever “actual progress is too slow” for the Contractor to achieve the Time for Completion, as stated in subparagraph (a) of this Sub-Clause; and\/or when its progress “has fallen (or will fall) behind the Programme,” as stated in subparagraph (a) of this Sub-Clause.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The revised programme that the Contractor must submit must comply with Sub-Clause 8.3 (see the guidance above on that Sub-Clause), (\u2026).”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Accordingly, the contract places on the Contractor\u2014not the Engineer\u2014the burden of submitting updated scheduling information that reflects the actual status of the project and the manner in which it intends to overcome the existing delay.<\/p>\n\n

If the Contractor does not submit that revised programme, the Engineer is not required to reconstruct the schedule independently or to quantify, in substitution for the Contractor, the claimed time or cost impact.<\/p>\n\n

In that situation, the Engineer may conclude that there is insufficient technical basis to make a favorable determination on the quantification of the alleged impact, because the very document that should reflect the project’s actual status and the effects of delays on the remaining activities is missing.<\/p>\n\n

Submission of a Deficient Time Impact Analysis<\/h3>\n\n

When the Contractor submits a deficient time impact analysis, the Engineer is not required to prepare an alternative quantification or remedy the technical deficiencies of the claim on the Contractor’s behalf.<\/p>\n\n

Sub-Clause 20.2.5 assumes that the Engineer must agree or determine the claim after receiving a fully detailed claim.<\/p>\n\n

That same provision states that, if the Engineer requires additional particulars, it may request them from the claimant, specifying what is needed and why.<\/p>\n\n

This confirms that the burden of submitting a sufficiently developed claim, with adequate technical support for the claimed impact, rests with the claiming party.<\/p>\n\n

This position is supported by the FIDIC Guide (commentary on Sub-Clause 20.2.4):3<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

\n\n\n

“Sub-Clause 20.2.4 requires the Fully Detailed Claim to be agreed or determined under RB2017_3.7 \/ YB2017_3.7 \/ SB2017_3.5 and within the time limits stated in that Sub-Clause (see the guidance above on it).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, in practice it often occurs that, while the claiming Party considers that it has already submitted a ‘Fully Detailed Claim,’ the Engineer\/Employer’s Representative considers that further information or ‘additional particulars’ are still required before proceeding under RB2017_3.7 \/ YB2017_3.7 \/ SB2017_3.5<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the final paragraph of this Sub-Clause sets out how this situation should be addressed. By following the step-by-step process in subparagraphs (i) to (iv) of this Sub-Clause, this provision is not intended to be used by the Engineer\/Employer’s Representative to delay taking action on a Claim for any reason, or to make unreasonable demands for ever-increasing information from the claiming Party.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Therefore, if the time impact analysis submitted by the Contractor is deficient, the Engineer is not required to prepare an alternative quantification or redo the claimant’s analysis independently.<\/p>\n\n

Contractually, the Engineer should request the necessary additional particulars and then agree or determine the claim on the basis of the information actually submitted and substantiated.<\/p>\n\n

Consequently, if the impact analysis does not adequately reflect the project’s actual status or permit the effect of the claimed event on time to be identified with sufficient support, the Engineer may limit its determination to what has been substantiated or, where appropriate, conclude that the requested quantification is insufficiently supported.<\/p>\n\n

Conclusions<\/h3>\n\n

Under FIDIC, the obligation to substantiate a claim technically rests with the Contractor. Accordingly, the Engineer is not required to quantify the claimed effects on the Contractor’s behalf when the Contractor has not submitted a revised or updated Programme, because Sub-Clauses 8.3 and 8.7 place on the Contractor the responsibility to maintain a programme that reflects the actual progress of the Works and the measures planned to overcome any delay.<\/p>\n\n

Likewise, when the time impact analysis submitted by the Contractor is deficient, the Engineer is not required to prepare an alternative quantification or complete the missing technical substantiation. Under Sub-Clause 20.2.5, the Engineer may request the necessary additional particulars and determine the claim on the basis of the information submitted, but it is not required to replace the claimant in preparing its own quantification.<\/p>\n\n

\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. 1.<\/span>F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Internationale des Ing\u00e9nieurs-Conseils (FIDIC), The FIDIC 2017 Contracts Guide: With Detailed Guidance on Using the Second Editions of FIDIC’s Conditions of Contract for Construction, 2017; Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design-Build, 2017; Conditions of Contract for EPC\/Turnkey Projects, 2017<\/em>, 2nd ed. (Geneva, Switzerland: FIDIC, 2022), 275.<\/li><\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\n
    \r\n
      \r\n \t
    1. 2.<\/span>Ibid., 285.<\/li><\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\n
      \r\n
        \r\n \t
      1. 3.<\/span>Ibid., 515.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

        <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        This article examines whether, under the FIDIC framework (2017 Red Book), the Engineer must quantify the effects of a claim when the Contractor has failed to provide the technical information necessary to substantiate it, either because it did not submit a revised or updated Programme or because the time impact analysis submitted is deficient. To […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5830,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[67,67],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fidic-contracts"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/BANNER-02-ingles.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5817"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5817\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5835,"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5817\/revisions\/5835"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5830"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cdrconsulting.pe\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}