You are here:

Construction Law/Determination of EOT


The issue pertains to a building construction project being executed by my organisation as the Contractor in the UAE.
The form of contract followed is FIDIC 1987(1992).

The Contractor has raised claims for two delaying events (EOT 1 & 2). However, neither of them has been determined so far by the Engineer, The original date of contract completion (January 7, 2015) has elapsed, although the project is about 95% complete as of now.

The necessary particulars in respect of both EOTs 1 and 2 have been submitted by Contractor.

In case of EOT-1, Engineer's comment were received and the re-submission was made fully complying with same.
(Date of submission: My 22, 2014; Receipt of Comment: July 24, 2014; Re-submission: Aug 10, 2014).

No comment has, however, been received from Engineer against EOT-2, which was submitted on Nov.30, 2014.

Notwithstanding the above, the Engineer has, in the month of March 2015, sent 'reminders'to the Contractor to 'make final submission of his extension of time claims'.
In response, the Contractor has reminded the Engineer of the submission as well re-submission made by him in respect of his claims and, in light of time elapsed, sought early determination of the same from the Engineer.
While doing so, the Contractor has insisted that he has made due compliance with Cl 53.3 insofar as both EOT claims are concerned, and that, as evident to him from the Engineer's reminders, the Engineer has failed to discharge his responsibility in accordance with Cl 53.3 (c), whereby he should have duly analysed Contractor's claim within 28 days of receiving detailed particulars of the claim, and made his recommendation to the Employer.

Kindly advise whether the Contractor is on valid contractual grounds to pursue the matter as:
a) Failure on part of the Engineer to perform his contractual obligation before elapsing of the original time for the completion of the contract period; and
b) As a result of no determination of time extension, the original completion date is no longer applicable and, therefore, the Contractor notifies the Engineer that time has been left at large.

Also, kindly enlighten as to the course of action available/to follow post-time at large notification.

Thanks and regards

Dear Sarvesh,

Thank you for your question.

a) Providing you have fulfilled all procedural requirements, apparently you did, and providing it is not an event with continuous effect (i.e. no need for a final account needed), yes, Engineer has failed to fulfil his obligation.

b) Yes, you can try that. It appears that indeed, conditions are met.

But that depends very much on the Law of the Country, as in certain jurisdictions "time at large" may not be enforceable. Suggest you seek some local legal advice.

If Law of the Country does not enforce that you will have no other option but to follow the disputes settlement route, most probably, including arbitration.

Hope that answer your queries, good luck!

Construction Law

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts




Questions related to Civil Engineering Contracts, using FIDIC or other Conditions of Contract, concerning Procurement procedures and documents (pre-qualification, tendering and contracting) and Services/ Works Contracts implementation matters including Determinations, Payments, Time Extensions, VOs, Claims/Disputes. Additionally, questions related to dealing with International Financing Institutions. Can also answer questions in Romanian. Can not answer improperly formulated questions.


Over 20 years of experience in the field of design, works supervision, construction, management of aid funds and technical assistance for various types of contracts implementation, including severe conflictual contractual situations leading to Claims and disputes. Claims/ Contract management, Disputes adjudication, Arbitration.

Member of Romanian Professional Association of Roads and Bridges; Listed on President's List of Adjudicators of Romanian Association of Consulting Engineers Former member of the Disputes Resolution Board Foundation (DRBF) of United States – nominee on DRBF President’s Disputes Board Members List and of DRBF Chapter for Eastern Europe Former member of Polish Association of Consulting Engineers (SIDiR) – nominee on SIDiR President’s Disputes Board Members National List Member of “” volunteers pool Member of the "Constructions Disputes Resolution Services” International Panel of Construction ADR Specialists" of United States

- Graduate in 1994 the Construction Institute - Graduate of several FIDIC,Procurement and other courses - Graduate of first Disputes Board Members Mentoring Scheme ( - FIDIC Accredited Adjudicator

Past/Present Clients
- Several State organisations/Ministries , such as Ministry of Transport, National Admistration of Roads, Ministry of Regional Development (former Ministry of European Integration), Public Works and Housing, Central Contracting and Financing Unit in Romania and also in Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia - Numerous Western based private consultancy companies - full CV and other relevant information available at

©2016 All rights reserved.