Very little systematic evaluation has been done, however, to analyse their practical application as well as the advantages and disadvantages for the contracting parties as “users” of such concepts. The author, on the occasion of various ICC-FIDIC seminars, has presented such an analysis on various construction and building projects. He has mainly focused on the contractor’s view, based on the experiences of his own company together with data made available by others. This article has been developed from speeches made at these seminars and at the same time updates this analysis.

Under normal circumstances it should be in the interest of both parties to a contract to find an early resolution of a problem on site. Unresolved problems create uncertainties and risks to the detriment of both parties. If a contractor has to perform works and prefinance such works without knowing what he will recover in respect of his costs, then this will at the very least demotivate him and the project will suffer accordingly.

The traditional method used internationally over many decades to resolve problems between the contracting parties has been the “engineer’s decision”. In many cases however, such decisions are difficult to accept on the part of the contractor. This difficulty does not arise owing to any perceived “incompetence” on the part of the engineer but more as a consequence of his assumed partiality, despite all possible contractual provision to the contrary. It is almost certain that an unbiased decision would not be given in regard to problems caused by a design that most likely originated from that same engineer from whom the decision is requested. The outcome is often only a rephrased party opinion known to the parties earlier and it is not the neutral opinion of an outsider causing the parties

---

307