Project AssureExtension-of-time (EOT) entitlement exists under both NEC4 and FIDIC, but the two contracts reach it by very different philosophies. Treating an NEC4 project like a FIDIC one, or vice versa, is one of the most common ways contractors forfeit entitlement they were owed.
How do NEC4 and FIDIC differ in their approach to extension of time?
NEC4 is built around prospective, real-time management. Delay and cost are handled together through the compensation event mechanism, assessed on a forecast basis at the time the event arises. FIDIC (1999 and 2017) is more retrospective and claims-driven: the contractor notifies a claim, then substantiates entitlement to time and money, often assessed after the effect is known.
| NEC4 | FIDIC (2017) | |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | Compensation Event (Cl. 60); Early Warning (Cl. 15) precedes it | Claim for EOT (Cl. 20.1) under Cl. 8.5 delay events |
| Notice period | 8 weeks to notify a CE or lose entitlement | 28 days from awareness to give notice, or the claim is time-barred |
| Assessment | Prospective: forecast impact at time of event, using the Accepted Programme | Often retrospective: substantiated after the effect, via detailed particulars |
| Time & money | Assessed together in one CE quotation | Time (Cl. 8) and money (Cl. 20) run through linked but distinct processes |
| Programme role | Accepted Programme is contractual and central (Cl. 31/32) | Programme required (Cl. 8.3) but less contractually determinative |
Where is EOT entitlement actually won or lost under NEC4 and FIDIC?
1. The time-bar
Both contracts bar late claims, but the clocks differ. FIDIC's 28-day notice under Clause 20.2.1 is a strict condition precedent, miss it and a genuine entitlement can evaporate. NEC4's 8-week CE notification carries a similar sanction. Diarising these from the moment of awareness is not administration; it is entitlement protection.
2. Prospective vs retrospective analysis
Under NEC4, an EOT is assessed on the forecast effect using the Accepted Programme. So the quality and acceptance of that programme is decisive. Under FIDIC, entitlement is frequently proven retrospectively, which puts the weight on the contemporaneous record and a defensible delay methodology (time impact or windows analysis).
3. The programme as evidence
In NEC4 the Accepted Programme is a contractual document with real teeth; a Clause 31/32 baseline and disciplined progress updates are the foundation of every CE assessment. In FIDIC the programme is required but its evidential weight depends on how well it was maintained. In both, a schedule that fails a DCMA 14-point check is a liability the moment it is relied on.
What do NEC4 and FIDIC EOT claims have in common?
Whichever contract governs, entitlement rests on two things: timely, matching notices and a contemporaneous programme good enough to carry the analysis. Our planning, controls and claims team prepares and defends EOT claims under both NEC4 and FIDIC, and our tools keep the underlying record assurance-grade from day one.