Disruption is the loss of productivity or efficiency — work taking longer, costing more or requiring extra resources — as a result of an event for which the Employer is responsible. Typical triggers include late drawings or instructions, design and sequencing changes, delayed access, variations or suspension of works.
Unlike delay, disruption may occur without affecting the Date for Completion. It is measured in output or efficiency, not in time. The Contractor must prove the causal link between the Employer-risk event and the measurable loss of productivity. Tribunals expect a clear chain of cause, effect and quantification, not a global claim or general allegation.
The contractual pathway under FIDIC 2017
All claims for time or money are governed by Clause 20.
The Contractor must give Notice of the event or circumstance as soon as practicable and no later than 28 days after becoming (or when it should have become) aware of it. Late notice bars the entitlement entirely.
The Contractor must then keep and produce contemporary records (Sub-Clause 20.2.3 and 6.10). These should show daily labour, plant and materials by activity and location. Within 84 days (or as otherwise agreed), the Contractor must submit a fully detailed claim describing the event, its contractual basis, the effect on time and cost and the quantum supported by the records.
Where disruption continues, the Contractor must provide monthly interim updates, followed by a final fully detailed claim within 28 days of the effects ceasing (Sub-Clauses 20.2.6 and 20.2.7).
The Engineer then consults both Parties and issues a neutral determination under 3.7. If dissatisfied, the Claim may proceed to the DAAB under Clause 21 and, if necessary, to arbitration.
The four pillars of a disruption claim
A. Cause – Identify the compensable events
Each event must fall within the Employer’s risk allocation. For example:
- Late or defective design information (clause 1.9);
- Late access to site or work areas (clause 2.1);
- Variations and re-sequencing (clause 13);
- Employer-instructed suspension or interference (clause 8.9).
Generic phrases such as “coordination issues” or “late approvals” are insufficient. The cause must be clearly tied to a contractual entitlement.
B. Effect – Show how the event disrupted the works
Explain how the event reduced productivity. For example:
- Out-of-sequence working or stacking of trades;
- Restricted access and working area congestion;
- Idle labour or plant and stop-start progress;
- Re-work or repeated learning cycles.
Site diaries, reports and photographs should demonstrate these conditions. Without evidence of actual operational impact, the claim is unlikely to succeed.
C. Quantification – Measure the loss
The accepted approach is the measured-mile analysis which involves a comparison of the output rates from a non-impacted period or area with those from the impacted period for the same work. Where no clear comparison exists, a baseline productivity or earned-value analysis may be considered.
Build up the cost transparently covering labour, plant, supervision, preliminaries and overheads. Avoid percentage uplifts or lump-sum allowances: tribunals and dispute boards show little sympathy for unsupported global estimates.
D. Support – Build the evidential foundation
Every aspect of the claim must be supported by contemporaneous project records:
- Daily manpower, plant and material logs (clause 6.10);
- Access and delivery records;
- Requests for Information and late instruction logs;
- Updated programme showing the revised sequence (clause 8.3);
- Correspondence and meeting minutes recording Employer directions.
Strong records demonstrate causation and credibility; weak or retrospective narratives invite challenge.
Common pitfalls
- Late or missing Notices – informal communication is not compliance.
- Insufficient records – no activity-based resource data.
- Stale programme – progress not updated or logic not revised.
- No monthly updates – claim becomes stale mid-project.
- Global claims – failure to distinguish Employer-caused and self-caused inefficiencies.
Each weakens the evidential thread and undermines entitlement under Clause 20.
Why process matters as much as proof
The procedural requirements in Clause 20 are conditions precedent. Compliance preserves entitlement whilst non-compliance extinguishes it.
The same discipline that satisfies Clause 20 also persuades the Engineer to decide fairly under 3.7. A precise, evidence-based submission is far more likely to be agreed or determined in the Contractor’s favour thereby avoiding escalation to the DAAB or arbitration altogether.
Practical takeaways
- Serve written Notices within 28 days — clearly marked and addressed to the Engineer.
- Keep daily, disaggregated records of labour, plant and materials.
- Submit a fully detailed claim within 84 days, identifying cause, effect, contractual basis and quantum.
- Maintain a current programme reflecting actual progress.
- File monthly updates until disruption ceases.
- Engage constructively with the Engineer’s 3.7 determination process.
The credibility of a disruption claim is built day-by-day and not in hindsight.