28 Days to Keep the Project Moving: A Contractor’s Guide to Adjudication

Introduction: The Adjudication Imperative

Construction adjudication has emerged as a critical tool for dispute resolution, particularly in a high-stakes, capital-intensive environment like the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Unlike the protracted timelines and significant costs associated with traditional litigation or arbitration, adjudication is a swift, streamlined, and cost-effective process designed to provide an interim, binding decision. Its fundamental principle is “pay now, argue later,” which is a mechanism to protect the cash flow of contractors and subcontractors, thereby preventing project stalls or termination caused by payment disputes.  

For contractors and other stakeholders in the GCC, understanding and leveraging adjudication is not merely about resolving conflict but about maintaining project momentum and ensuring business continuity. An adjudicator, typically an impartial expert with deep knowledge of the construction industry, can render a decision on disputes over payment, variations, or time extensions in as little as 28 days. This rapid resolution minimizes financial strain and allows projects to proceed without significant interruption, which is crucial for managing timelines, budgets, and professional relationships.  

This report provides a comprehensive guide to construction adjudication, tailored to the professional audience operating in the GCC. It details the legal and contractual frameworks, outlines a masterclass on the 28-day timeline, and provides strategic insights on building a strong evidentiary case. The analysis will also address the critical steps following a decision, including enforcement and the pathway to final dispute resolution.

Chapter 1: The Legal and Contractual Landscape in the GCC

1.1 Adjudication: A Tale of Two Frameworks

The legal basis for construction adjudication varies significantly across jurisdictions, and this distinction is crucial for understanding its application in the GCC. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA) provides a statutory right to adjudicate for nearly all “construction contracts”. This legislation mandates that a party has the right to refer a dispute to adjudication at any time, and if the contract’s own provisions are inadequate, a statutory default scheme applies. This statutory right establishes a clear, consistent, and predictable legal framework that underpins the entire adjudication process.  

In contrast, the legal landscape in the GCC is predominantly based on contractual provisions rather than overarching statutory schemes. While the concept of adjudication is widely used, its enforceability and procedural rules are derived directly from the construction contract itself. Two of the most common standard forms of contract in the region, the FIDIC and the GCC (General Conditions of Contract), provide for adjudication as a method of dispute resolution.  

FIDIC contracts, particularly the 1999 edition, mandate a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB). The DAB is a panel of experienced, impartial individuals appointed at the outset of the project to become familiar with the works and resolve disputes as they arise. A DAB decision is provisionally binding and must be complied with immediately, serving as a contractual prerequisite to commencing arbitration.  

The General Conditions of Contract for Construction (GCC), in its 2010 and 2015 editions, similarly provides for adjudication in Clause 10.5. However, a significant legal vulnerability exists in this framework. The contract may stipulate the use of a standing adjudication board that must be appointed by the parties within a specified timeframe, such as 56 days from the commencement date. A recent court ruling highlighted a critical gap: if the parties fail to appoint this standing board, the contract does not automatically revert to an ad-hoc adjudication process. This means that the entire dispute resolution provision can be rendered “invalid or inoperative,” forcing the parties into traditional court litigation, a far more time-consuming and costly process. This underscores a fundamental truth in the GCC context: a contractor’s right to adjudicate is only as strong as the clarity and compliance of their contract. Diligent pre-contractual due diligence and strict adherence to contractual requirements are not merely procedural; they are the primary means of securing an effective dispute resolution pathway.  

While the GCC has historically relied on a contractual basis, a major recent development points toward a shift. Dubai Law No. 8 of 2025 has introduced a quasi-statutory adjudication mechanism for disputes under AED 10 million concerning citizens’ homes. This law establishes a specialized committee, the “Construction Disputes Adjudication Committee,” which can issue a reasoned, enforceable decision within 30 days. This trend demonstrates a legislative intent to formalize rapid dispute resolution to protect consumer rights, ensure project continuity, and reduce the burden on traditional courts.  

1.2 What Qualifies for Adjudication

For an adjudication to be valid, a “dispute” must first exist, and it must have “crystallized”. This means that a claim has been made by one party, and the other party has either expressly disputed it or failed to respond, thereby implicitly not admitting it. Without a crystallized dispute, an adjudicator may lack the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case, and any decision they render may be unenforceable.  

Adjudication is best suited for disputes that require a quick, interim decision to maintain project progress. Typical issues that qualify include:  

• Payment Disputes: This is the most common use of adjudication, addressing non-payment or under-payment of interim and final accounts.  
• Variations and Changes: Disputes over the valuation of additional work or changes to the contract scope.  
• Extension of Time (EOT) Claims: Adjudication is an ideal forum for contractors to seek an extension to the project timeline due to delays caused by factors outside their control, such as design changes or unforeseen site conditions.  
• Defects in Work: Claims related to the quality of workmanship or materials.  
• Loss and Expense Claims: Claims for additional costs incurred as a result of an event that entitles the contractor to compensation.  

A critical strategic consideration is the “single dispute” rule. While case law in certain jurisdictions has been lenient on this, a referring party must be careful to frame their claim as a single dispute, even if it encompasses multiple sub-issues, such as an EOT claim and an associated claim for loss and expense. Referring “multiple disputes” can create an immediate jurisdictional challenge from the responding party, which, if successful, can invalidate the entire adjudication process.  

Chapter 2: The 28-Day Adjudication Timeline: A Procedural Masterclass

2.1 The Paced Sprint: Key Stages

The 28-day adjudication timeline is a condensed and rigorous process that demands strict adherence to procedural steps. The efficiency and expediency of this timeline are central to adjudication’s purpose of providing rapid resolution.  

1. The Notice of Adjudication: The process begins when the “Referring Party” serves a written Notice of Adjudication on the other party, known as the “Responding Party”. This document is a critical first step as it formally initiates the process and defines the adjudicator’s jurisdiction and the scope of the dispute. It must clearly describe the nature of the dispute, the parties involved, the contract, and the specific remedy being sought.  

2. Appointment of the Adjudicator: Within seven days of the Notice of Adjudication, an adjudicator must be appointed. This can be done by mutual agreement, from a pre-named panel in the contract, or by applying to a nominating body.  

3. The Referral: The clock for the 28-day period begins ticking when the Referring Party submits its detailed case, known as the Referral, to the adjudicator and the Responding Party. This document, which must be submitted within seven days of the adjudicator’s appointment, is the cornerstone of the claimant’s case. It contains detailed submissions, supporting documentation, witness statements, and expert evidence.  

4. The Response: The Responding Party is then given a very limited time to prepare and serve its Response, which typically ranges from seven to 14 days. The Response must directly address the claims made in the Referral and include all rebuttals, arguments, and supporting evidence. This compressed timeframe is a key strategic element of adjudication. While the referring party has had ample time to prepare its case, the responding party is often “ambushed” and must work under extreme pressure to mount a defense. The short response window highlights the need for companies to have all project documentation and potential evidence meticulously organized and ready for rapid deployment.  

5. Further Submissions and Hearings: The adjudicator has the discretion to set a timetable for the remainder of the process, which may include further submissions such as a Reply from the Referring Party. Most adjudications are conducted “on paper,” but the adjudicator may call for an informal meeting, a teleconference, a site visit, or even an oral hearing to clarify procedural or factual matters.  

6. The Decision: The adjudicator is required to provide their decision within 28 days of the Referral. This deadline can be extended by up to 14 days if the Referring Party agrees, or for any longer period if both parties consent. The decision must be reasoned and address all the points raised in the parties’ submissions.  

2.2 Essential Table: The Adjudication Timeline

The following table provides a clear, actionable guide to the procedural requirements of a typical adjudication, highlighting the key actions for both the Referring Party and the Responding Party.

Event	Timeline	Referring Party Action	Responding Party Action
Crystallization of Dispute	Prior to Notice	Ensure claim has been made and rejected/not admitted.	Rejection/non-admission of claim triggers dispute.
Notice of Adjudication	Day 0	Serves a formal written Notice on the Responding Party.	Receives Notice; prepares for adjudicator appointment.
Appointment of Adjudicator	Within 7 days of Notice	Seeks to agree on an adjudicator with the other party or applies to a nominating body.	Agrees on an adjudicator or responds to the nominating body.
Referral	Within 7 days of Appointment	Submits the full, detailed case and supporting documents.	Receives Referral; begins compiling all defensive submissions.
Response	Timeframe set by Adjudicator (typically 7-14 days)	Awaits the Response; may prepare for a Reply.	Submits the full Response with all rebuttals and evidence.
Further Submissions/Hearing	At Adjudicator’s discretion	Submits Reply if permitted; attends any scheduled meetings or site visits.	May submit a Rejoinder if permitted; attends any scheduled meetings or site visits.
Decision	Within 28 days of Referral (extendable)	Awaits the Decision; prepares for compliance or enforcement proceedings.	Awaits the Decision; prepares for compliance or challenge.

Export to Sheets

Chapter 3: The Adjudication Evidence Pack: Building a Factual Case

3.1 The Power of Contemporaneous Records

The success of any adjudication is predicated not on persuasive rhetoric but on solid, verifiable evidence. The gold standard for this evidence is contemporaneous records—documents that were “produced or prepared at or about the time giving rise to a claim”. Adjudicators place immense weight on these documents because they are considered an authentic, unvarnished record of events. Conversely, witness statements or summaries created long after the fact are given less weight because memory can fade, and there may be a risk that the documents were prepared specifically for litigation.  

A common pitfall for contractors is failing to produce accurate and succinct records to substantiate their claims. This is where a proactive approach to project documentation becomes a critical business function rather than a mere administrative task. A well-maintained site diary, for instance, is a powerful piece of evidence that can detail daily operations, weather conditions, equipment usage, and any incidents or delays. The integrity of such a diary is paramount; it must be completed daily, ruled off, and signed, with no alterations made later. An adjudicator is not easily deceived by records that appear to have been created after the fact.  

Examples of vital contemporaneous records include:

• Routine Job Records: Daily reports, site diaries, foreman’s time cards, and material delivery tickets.  
• Formal Project Correspondence: Minutes of site meetings, letters of protest, and change orders.  
• Visual Documentation: Time-stamped photographs and videos are highly credible forms of evidence that provide an objective record of site conditions and events.  
• Project Programmes: Original schedules, updated schedules, and progress reports are essential for substantiating delay and EOT claims.  

3.2 Technical and Expert Inputs

While routine records establish the facts, technical inputs from experts are often required to quantify and analyze claims, particularly for complex issues like extensions of time or variations.

Using Programme Analysis for EOTs: A delay claim requires a structured and technical approach. It is not enough to simply state that a delay occurred; the contractor must demonstrate how an excusable delay event impacted the project’s critical path. This is where a delay analysis methodology comes into play, such as a Time Impact Analysis or a Windows Analysis. This process involves:  

1. Identifying the Delay Event: Categorizing the delay as either excusable (e.g., adverse weather, design changes) or non-excusable (e.g., contractor negligence).  
2. Quantifying the Impact: Assessing the effect of the delay on the overall project schedule using tools like the Critical Path Method (CPM).  
3. Substantiating with Evidence: Tying every step of the analysis to documented proof, such as daily reports, correspondence, and weather reports.  

Expert Reports and Witness Statements:

• Expert Reports: In cases involving technical or valuation disputes, an adjudicator may rely on expert reports from quantity surveyors, engineers, or other specialists. These reports provide an impartial, professional opinion on matters such as the value of a variation or the cost of a defect.  
• Witness Statements: Statements from individuals with direct, firsthand knowledge of events are crucial for providing factual context. These statements should be provided by key personnel who were on site or involved in relevant discussions. For maximum credibility, witness statements should be prepared as sworn evidence and attach all supporting documents, clearly referenced.  

Chapter 4: Strategic Preparation and Submission

4.1 Framing for Success: Defining the Single Dispute

Adjudication is a time-pressured, adversarial process, and success is often determined before the first submission is even made. The initial Notice of Adjudication and subsequent Referral are a party’s only opportunity to define the dispute and shape the adjudicator’s remit.  

A key strategic decision is how to frame the claim to comply with the “single dispute” rule. While a single dispute can encompass multiple sub-issues, such as an EOT claim and associated loss and expense, it must be presented cohesively. For instance, a claim for non-payment of an interim application, which may be a combination of contract works and variations, can be framed as a single dispute of the employer’s failure to pay the sum claimed. A referring party must be meticulous in its drafting to avoid a jurisdictional challenge from the responding party who may allege that multiple, distinct disputes have been referred.  

The referral itself should be a comprehensive and meticulously structured document. It should not only set out the case in detail but also attach all supporting contemporaneous documentation, witness statements, and expert reports from the outset. The aim is to create a complete and compelling case that is easy for the adjudicator to follow, leaving no gaps for the opposing party to exploit.  

4.2 Clarity and Conciseness: The Adjudicator’s Perspective

Adjudicators, often quantity surveyors or engineers, have a very limited time to review voluminous submissions and render a decision. As a result, they are looking for submissions that are clear, concise, and easy to navigate. The adjudicator’s duty is to apply the law to the facts, so a submission should focus on providing facts and evidence rather than on verbose, legalistic arguments.  

Adjudicators are trained to identify and rely on specific characteristics in a submission:

• Factual Basis: The party making an allegation bears the burden of proving it. Claims must be substantiated with documented proof, such as photographs, meeting minutes, and daily reports.  
• Logical Structure: A well-structured submission with clear headings, bullet points, and numbered sections is essential for readability. Providing a detailed reconciliation of payments and claimed amounts upfront can expedite the adjudicator’s review.  
• Professional Tone: The language should be neutral, objective, and respectful, focusing on contract terms and facts rather than on personal opinions or blame. The tone should be firm but not adversarial.  
• Comprehensive but not Overwhelming: While all relevant documents should be attached, the submission should focus on the key facts and analysis. Avoiding unnecessary detail and repetition is crucial, as “drowning the adjudicator in paperwork can make it harder to get to the bottom of the key issues”.  

The manner in which a party presents its case can directly affect the adjudicator’s ability to render a logical and well-reasoned decision within the compressed timeline. A submission that is clear and easy to follow increases the likelihood of a favorable outcome because it assists the adjudicator in reaching a decision, while a confusing or disorganized submission may lead to an unfavorable result.  

Chapter 5: After the Decision: Compliance, Challenge, and Finality

5.1 The Interim Binding Decision: Navigating a “Pay Now” World

A fundamental principle of adjudication is that the adjudicator’s decision is “interim binding”. This means that the parties are required to comply with the decision immediately, even if they intend to challenge it later. The primary purpose is to ensure that cash flow is restored and that the project can continue without financial interruption.  

If the losing party refuses to comply with the decision, the successful party can apply to the courts for enforcement. In jurisdictions with a mature adjudication framework, such as the UK, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) will typically uphold the decision and issue a summary judgment. The courts are strongly disposed to enforce adjudicators’ decisions and will not re-examine the merits of the underlying dispute.  

The grounds for challenging an adjudicator’s decision are extremely limited and are generally restricted to issues of jurisdiction or a breach of natural justice.  

• Jurisdictional Challenge: A challenge can be mounted if a party can prove that the adjudicator lacked the authority to hear the dispute, for instance, if the dispute had not crystallized or if multiple disputes were improperly referred to the adjudicator.  
• Breach of Natural Justice: A successful challenge on this ground is rare and requires proving that the adjudicator committed a material and significant breach, such as failing to consider a party’s defense or acting in a biased manner. Courts have a high bar for such claims and will not entertain “scrabbling” for minor procedural faults to avoid compliance.  

In the GCC, the principle of interim binding decisions is similarly enforced. Dubai’s new Law No. 8 of 2025 explicitly states that a decision from the Construction Disputes Adjudication Committee shall constitute an enforceable instrument unless challenged within a legal deadline. This demonstrates a clear legal intent to strengthen the enforceability of adjudication decisions in the region and align with the “pay now, argue later” ethos.  

5.2 Next Steps: From Enforcement to Final Resolution

While an adjudicator’s decision is binding on an interim basis, it does not necessarily represent the final word on the dispute. The parties still have the right to have the matter finally determined in a more formal legal forum, typically arbitration or litigation, as specified in their contract.  

Adjudication often serves as a temporary fix that allows a project to continue while the parties work toward a more permanent solution. However, in a significant number of cases, the adjudication decision effectively ends the dispute, with statistics showing that the majority of decisions are accepted by the parties as the final result. The decision’s provisional nature is a trade-off for its speed and cost-effectiveness. A party must weigh the financial and time costs of a full-scale legal proceeding against the value of the dispute to decide if it is worthwhile to pursue the matter beyond the adjudicator’s decision.  

The following table provides a clear comparison of adjudication, arbitration, and litigation, which are the three primary dispute resolution pathways for construction projects in the GCC.

Feature	Adjudication	Arbitration	Litigation
Speed	Very fast (28-42 days)	Months to years	Years
Cost	Relatively low	High	Highest
Binding Nature	Interim binding	Final and binding	Final and binding
Enforceability	Enforced by courts on a summary basis	Enforceable via courts and international conventions	Enforceable via courts
Scope of Disputes	Often limited to payment/EOT/valuations	Broad range of issues	Broad range of issues
Adjudicator/Judge	Industry expert	Industry expert (arbitrator)	Legally qualified judge
Confidentiality	Confidential	Confidential	Public proceedings

Chapter 6: Practical Tools and Templates

6.1 Your Action Plan: Sample Documents and Checklists

Successful adjudication requires meticulous preparation and strict adherence to a logical process. The compressed timeframe means there is little room for error or last-minute preparation. To assist contractors and project professionals, the following checklist and templates serve as a practical guide for preparing for and conducting an adjudication.  

Adjudication Checklist:

Pre-Adjudication: Preparation is Paramount

• 1. Crystallize the Dispute: Ensure a claim has been made and the other party has expressly or implicitly denied it.  
• 2. Check Contractual Provisions: Confirm that the contract provides for adjudication and that any preconditions have been met.  
• 3. Define the Single Dispute: Clearly frame the issue as a single dispute, grouping related sub-issues together to avoid jurisdictional challenges.  
• 4. Gather Contemporaneous Records: Collect all relevant documentation, including daily reports, site diaries, meeting minutes, and correspondence. Ensure they are dated, factual, and complete.  
• 5. Compile the Evidence Pack: Organize all contractual documents, witness statements, expert reports, and project programmes to be ready for immediate submission upon serving the Notice of Adjudication.  

During Adjudication: Execution and Compliance

• 6. Draft and Serve the Notice: Serve a clear, concise Notice of Adjudication that defines the dispute and the remedy sought.  
• 7. Appoint the Adjudicator: Within seven days of the Notice, follow the contract’s procedure to appoint the adjudicator.  
• 8. Submit the Referral: Serve the full Referral document within seven days of the adjudicator’s appointment. The referral should be clear, logical, and evidence-based.  
• 9. Respond to a Referral: If on the receiving end, act with extreme urgency to prepare and serve a comprehensive Response within the tight timeframe set by the adjudicator. Address every point in the Referral and attach all supporting evidence.  

Sample Templates and Documents:

1. Submission Cover Sheet: A professional cover sheet is essential for organizing a large submission and making it easy for the adjudicator to navigate. It should include:  

• Case Title and Reference Number
• Parties to the Adjudication
• Adjudicator’s Name
• Date of Submission
• Table of Contents/Index of Documents

2. Chronology of Events: A detailed chronology of events, supported by citations to the submitted evidence, is an invaluable tool for both the referring and responding parties. It presents a clear, narrative timeline of the dispute’s progression, allowing the adjudicator to quickly understand the factual background.  

3. Issue List: A concise list of the specific issues to be determined by the adjudicator is a powerful way to focus the dispute. This list should be a primary part of the submission and guide the adjudicator’s decision. It should clearly state the questions the adjudicator is being asked to answer, such as:  

• Is the Referring Party entitled to an extension of time for the 12-day delay caused by a design change?
• What is the fair valuation of Variation Order No. 4, and is the Responding Party liable for payment?

These tools, combined with a disciplined approach to project documentation, transform adjudication from a reactive legal process into a proactive strategic one. For contractors and project professionals in the GCC, mastering this process is not only about resolving disputes but about safeguarding project success and profitability.Sources used in the report