Project: Construction of Coastal Port Facility
Contract: FIDIC Red Book (1999)
Parties:
- Employer: XYZ Port Authority
-
Contractor: ABC Construction Ltd.
Adjudicator: [Independent Adjudicator]
Date of Decision: [Insert Date]
1. Introduction
This adjudication arises from a dispute referred by the Contractor concerning entitlement to Extension of Time (EOT) and additional payment resulting from an instruction issued by the Engineer. The Contractor contends that the instruction constitutes a variation that impacted the critical path and increased project costs. The Employer disputes both entitlement and quantum.
2. Background
The Contract commenced on 1 January 2025 with a completion period of 18 months. On 15 June 2025, the Engineer issued an instruction requiring modification of the foundation design due to unforeseen soil conditions. The Contractor complied with the instruction and subsequently submitted a claim for 45 days EOT and associated cost.
The Contractor issued a Notice of Claim on 20 June 2025 and submitted a detailed claim on 30 July 2025. The Engineer rejected the claim, stating that the condition was foreseeable and that the Contractor failed to demonstrate delay to the critical path.
3. Issues for Determination
The following issues are to be determined:
- Whether the Engineer’s instruction constitutes a Variation under the Contract
- Whether the Contractor is entitled to Extension of Time
- Whether the Contractor is entitled to additional payment
4. Summary of Parties’ Positions
The Contractor argues that the change in foundation design was outside the original scope and directly impacted the sequence of works, causing delay and additional cost. The Employer argues that the Contractor should have anticipated the ground condition and that no critical delay has been proven.
5. Analysis
5.1 Variation
The Engineer’s instruction required a modification to the original foundation design. Based on Clause 13 (Variations), this constitutes a change in the scope of works. I therefore determine that the instruction is a Variation under the Contract.
5.2 Notice Compliance
The Contractor issued a Notice of Claim within 5 days of the instruction. This satisfies the requirement under Sub-Clause 20.1. Therefore, the Contractor’s entitlement is not time-barred.
5.3 Extension of Time (EOT)
The Contractor has submitted a delay analysis indicating that the redesign and additional works affected the critical path. However, upon review, I find that part of the delay overlaps with the Contractor’s own delays in procurement.
Therefore, I determine that the Contractor is entitled to 30 days Extension of Time, rather than the 45 days claimed.
5.4 Additional Payment
The Contractor has provided cost breakdowns supported by records. While most costs are justified, some overhead claims are insufficiently substantiated.
I determine that the Contractor is entitled to reasonable additional cost, subject to adjustment by the Engineer in accordance with Clause 12 and 13.
6. Decision
Based on the above analysis, I decide as follows:
- The Engineer’s instruction is a Variation
- The Contractor is entitled to 30 days Extension of Time
- The Contractor is entitled to additional payment, to be evaluated and agreed in accordance with the Contract
7. Binding Effect
This decision is binding on an interim basis in accordance with the Contract. The parties shall comply with this decision immediately unless and until it is revised by arbitration.
8. Conclusion
This adjudication has been determined based on the submissions of both parties, the contract provisions, and the evidence presented. The decision aims to fairly allocate risk and maintain project continuity.
Adjudicator Signature:
[Name]
[Date]
