Disruption and How To Handle It

Geopolitical volatility has disrupted key shipping corridors, driving up costs and delaying delivery of essential construction materials such as steel, cement, and aluminium. Major carriers have suspended Gulf-bound sailings, airspace closures have widened, and freight is being diverted onto longer global routes, tightening logistics capacity and amplifying schedule risk across projects worldwide. In this environment, disciplined record‑keeping, proactive contract notices, and robust programme management are critical to managing disruption effectively.

Below are some best practice tips for managing disruption as it happens.

Spot the disruption and lock down contemporaneous records (Day 1)

• Log the event in the site diary the same day (who/what/when/where).
• Capture evidence: time‑stamped photos/video, delivery notes, access logs, weather, drawings/transmittals, instructions, plant/labour allocations, permits.
• Tie the event to affected activities/locations (WBS codes, zones, drawings).
• Keep an “issue pack” per event.

Why this matters

Contemporaneous records and prompt analysis are essential evidence in proving delay and disruption, hence their status as core principles of the Society of Construction Law (SCL) Delay & Disruption Protocol.

Freeze the baseline, keep the programme current, separate delay vs disruption (Day 1–3)

On the ground

• Keep a frozen baseline and maintain an as‑built/current programme; update weekly on live jobs and after every major change.
• Map impact to the critical path (delay/EOT) vs productivity loss (disruption, measured in outputs).
• Record planned/actual outputs for key trades (e.g., m²/day, metres of pipe/day) to enable measured mile analysis later.

Contract pointers

• FIDIC 2017 increases prescription for programme content (logic links, float, critical paths) and introduces the Advance Warning mechanism early. (Cl. 8.4)
• NEC4 ECC makes the Accepted Programme the central tool for assessing time (Clause 63.5) and requires regular submissions/acceptance (Clause 31/32).
• JCT relies on the contractor’s programme but expects you to prove causation to Relevant Events; good progress and output data are essential.

Notify early, and correctly, under your contract (Week 1)

• Issue the right notice (risk/early warning/notice of claim/notice of delay) as soon as you’re aware (you don’t necessarily need to wait for full particulars).
• Reference the event, date of the event or when you became aware of it, affected activities/sections, potential time/cost impact, and immediate mitigation actions required.
• File notices separately (one event = one notice) and log them in a register.

Contract‑by‑contract (based on Standard Wording)

• FIDIC 2017: 28 days from awareness for a Notice of Claim (Clause 20.2.1), then 84 days for a fully detailed claim unless extended. The Engineer must warn if he considers the notices late; otherwise, validity may be deemed  (but don’t bank on that).
• NEC4 ECC: Early Warning (Cl.15) “as soon as aware,” and Compensation Event notification by the Contractor within 8 weeks of awareness if the PM hasn’t notified (Cl.61.3), miss it and entitlement can be lost. Failure to give early warning can also reduce recovery (Cl. 61.5/63.7; Disallowed Cost risk under target/cost-reimbursable options).
• JCT 2016/2024: Notify delay (Relevant Events) promptly and apply for EOT; for loss & expense (Relevant Matters), notify and substantiate “as soon as is reasonably practicable.” The debate continues over whether the JCT 2024 notice provisions act as conditions precedent (treat them as if they are intended to protect recovery). (JCT D&B Cl. 2.24 & 4.20)

Review your contractual rights and duties (Week 1)

Key checks

• Entitlement route (time and/or money), notice deadlines, mitigation duties, and time bars.
• Who decides: Engineer (FIDIC), Project Manager (NEC), Contract Administrator/Employer’s Agent (JCT).
• Evidence requirements (programme logic, cause and effect, cost build‑ups, etc.).

Pointers & updates

• FIDIC 2017 unifies Employer and Contractor claims in Clause 20 and separates claims (20) from disputes (21). The engineer consults and then determines under Clause 3.7.
• NEC4 hard‑wires prospective assessment of CEs using the Accepted Programme at the dividing date (Cl.63.5), with guidance on out‑of‑date programmes and PM assessments (Cl.64).
• JCT 2024 introduces modernisation (email service of notices, collaboration clause) and extends Relevant Matters in DB 2024 (e.g., epidemics; changes in law/guidance, subject to Contract Particulars for money).

Analyse programme impact methodically (Week 1–2)

Delay (EOT)

• Use recognised methods: Time Impact Analysis / fragnet, or windows methods, always tied to the contract’s programme regime.
• Identify whether the event hits the critical path (EOT) or only productivity (disruption).
• Keep prospective where required (especially under NEC).

Contract specifics

• FIDIC 2017: Clause 8 changes increase programme rigour; EOT sits in 8.5 with structured claims under 20.2.
• NEC4: Assess CE time using the Accepted Programme at the dividing date and only the CE’s effect (avoid “project noise”). NEC Practice Notes give step‑by‑step assessment guidance. (Cl. 63)
• JCT: CA/EA determines fair and reasonable EOT for Relevant Events; ensure analysis isolates employer‑risk causes and shows critical delay. (Cl. 2.26)

Quantify cost and disruption (Week 2–3)

Construction‑ready approach

• Build measured mile comparisons: unimpacted vs impacted outputs (same crews, same work type, similar conditions).
• Capture prolongation (site prelims, staff, plant), mitigation costs (overtime, resequencing), subcontractor claims, and any standing time.
• Keep disruption distinct from delay damages relief.

Contract nuances

• FIDIC 2017: Submit a fully detailed claim (within 84 days unless agreed) covering facts, contractual/legal basis, time, and money; Engineer agreement/determination under (Cl. 3.7).
• NEC4: Quote time and Defined Cost for the CE together; lack of early warning may reduce assessed compensation (Cl.61.5/63.7).
• JCT 2016/2024: Loss & Expense for Relevant Matters subject to prompt notice and substantiation (be mindful of potential condition precedent interpretation). (Cl. 4.21)

Submit a clean, contract‑compliant claim (Week 3 onward)

What to include

• Executive summary (event, cause, effect, remedy sought).
• Contractual basis (clause references), notices timeline, communications.
• Programme analysis (method, data, findings).
• Cost build‑up with measured mile (or alternative recognised) methodology.
• Mitigation/acceleration decisions (avoid “voluntary acceleration” without instruction).

Process owner

• FIDIC: Engineer consultation then agreement/determination; disputes go to DAAB (Cl. 21).
• NEC4: PM instructs quotation, accepts or makes own assessment; keeps the CE file aligned to the Accepted Programme.
• JCT: CA/EA decides EOT; Employer ascertains loss & expense, keep submissions clear and contemporaneous.

Five pitfalls to avoid

1. Late notice → Diarise deadlines (28 days FIDIC; 8 weeks NEC CEs; prompt JCT). Use a shared “claims clock” on every job.
2. Out‑of‑date programmes → NEC assessments use the Accepted Programme at the dividing date; if none is current, you risk PM’s own assessment.
3. Mixing delay with disruption → Keep EOT (critical path) separate from productivity claims (measured mile).
4. Uninstructed acceleration → Don’t throw resources at a problem and expect recovery without an instruction or agreement.
5. “Wait‑and‑see” case building → SCL Protocol prefers contemporaneous evaluation and clear, transparent methods.

Side‑by‑Side: What to do under FIDIC, NEC4, and JCT when disruption strikes

Step	FIDIC (2017)	NEC4 ECC	JCT (2016 / 2024)
Early risk flag	Advance Warning obligation in Clause 8.4 (collaborative warning of matters that may affect time/cost).	Early Warning (Cl.15) as soon as aware; add to the Early Warning Register and hold meetings at the stated interval. Sanctions if missed (assessment “as if warned”, disallowed cost risk).	No formal “early warning” mechanism; use prompt correspondence/ minute meetings to evidence early engagement and mitigation intent. (JCT 2024 adds collaboration language.)
Initial notice	Notice of Claim within 28 days of awareness (20.2.1). Late? An  Engineer must give a 14‑day time‑bar notice; otherwise, the validity may be deemed still risky to rely on.	If PM hasn’t notified, Contractor must notify a Compensation Event within 8 weeks of awareness (Cl.61.3) or lose entitlement.	EOT/Delay: notify Relevant Events promptly; Loss & Expense: notify and substantiate ASAP. Treat JCT 2024’s loss & expense provisions as potentially time‑barring to be safe.
Programme basis	More prescriptive 8.3 Programme (logic, float, CPs, software). EOT at 8.5 with claim mechanics in 20.2.	Accepted Programme is king; CE time assessed prospectively against the dividing date (Cl.63.5). NEC practice notes explain the method.	Contractor’s programme evidences critical delay to Relevant Events; keep it current to support fair & reasonable EOT.
Time analysis	Objective, clause‑compliant analysis; SCL supports contemporary analysis over “wait‑and‑see”.	Prospective assessment using the current Accepted Programme; isolate the CE from other noise.	Demonstrate cause‑and‑effect to the critical path; keep the method proportionate and transparent.
Disruption (productivity)	Quantify in the 84‑day detailed claim window; measured mile preferred where records allow. The engineer determines under 3.7.	Include productivity/cost in CE quotation; missing early warnings may reduce compensation (Cl.61.5/63.7).	Claim Loss & Expense for Relevant Matters with contemporaneous evidence; keep disruption distinct from EOT.
Decision maker	Engineer consults and determines (3.7); disputes under 21.	Project Manager assesses/accepts quotations, or makes their own assessment (Cl.64).	CA/Employer’s Agent (EOT) and Employer (loss & expense) determine under the contract.

About the Author

Scott is an experienced quantity surveyor and Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators with more than 30 years in the construction industry. He has been appointed as an independent quantum expert in arbitration and Dispute Adjudication Board proceedings, and has been cross-examined as an expert witness on multiple occasions. Scott has also supported expert witnesses and legal teams by providing claims advice, commercial and contract management, and dispute resolution services. His international experience spans sectors including power and industrial, buildings, transportation, infrastructure, and natural resources.