A Warsaw-based developer receives a contractor's claim for prolongation costs exceeding PLN 3m. The claim lands on a Friday afternoon. Under the FIDIC conditions incorporated into the Polish construction contract, a formal adjudication notice must follow within a strict window – or the right to pursue that claim through the Dispute Adjudication Board is forfeited entirely. Missing that window does not merely delay resolution. It can permanently close the procedural path and leave a party arguing in arbitration without the benefit of a prior DAB decision.

Under Polish law, FIDIC-based construction contracts incorporate a multi-tier dispute resolution mechanism that begins with the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB). The DAB issues a binding decision within 84 days of a referral, and failure to comply with that decision – or to issue a timely Notice of Dissatisfaction – forfeits the right to challenge it in arbitration. Polish courts, including the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court of Poland), have confirmed that FIDIC procedural timelines are enforceable under Polish contract law.

This guide walks through the adjudication procedure step by step: how the DAB is constituted, what triggers a referral, how the 84-day clock runs, what mistakes cost parties their claims, and how three different business profiles – a manufacturing investor, an IT campus developer, and a foreign-owned infrastructure company – should approach the process under Polish conditions.

How does the FIDIC adjudication mechanism work under Polish law?

FIDIC adjudication in Poland operates within a contractual framework overlaid on the Kodeks cywilny (Civil Code) and the Prawo budowlane (Construction Law). The mechanism is not statutory – it derives from the contract. That distinction matters because Polish courts treat the DAB clause as a binding procedural condition precedent to arbitration, not merely a recommended step.

The standard FIDIC Red Book (1999 edition) requires the parties to constitute a DAB before or shortly after contract signature. In Polish practice, many public and private contracts delay this step, which creates immediate risk. If no DAB exists when a dispute arises, the parties must agree on a member within 28 days – or either party may apply to the President of the Federacja Stowarzyszeń Naukowo-Technicznych NOT (Federation of Scientific and Technical Associations NOT) or another appointing authority named in the contract. The National Court Register (KRS) records of the contracting entity do not affect this procedural obligation.

Once constituted, the DAB receives a written referral. The 84-day period begins on the date of referral. The board may extend this period with the parties' consent, but unilateral extension is not permitted. The DAB visits the site, reviews submissions, and issues a reasoned written decision. That decision is immediately binding – both parties must comply, even if one intends to challenge it.

  • Referral triggers the 84-day decision window
  • Site visits and submissions occur within that window
  • The decision is binding upon issue, not upon acceptance
  • A Notice of Dissatisfaction must be filed within 28 days to preserve arbitration rights
  • Failure to comply with a binding DAB decision is itself a breach of contract

We obtained a favourable DAB decision for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025), recovering a disputed retention sum of over PLN 1.8m. The contractor had argued the referral was premature. The DAB disagreed – and the decision became binding before arbitration was even threatened.

What are the critical deadlines that determine whether a claim survives?

Deadlines in FIDIC adjudication are not administrative formalities. They are substantive conditions. Miss one, and the claim – however well-founded on the merits – may be permanently barred. Polish contract law reinforces this: a party that fails to issue a notice within the contractually prescribed period forfeits the right to rely on that event as a basis for a claim.

The first deadline is the 28-day notice of claim following the event giving rise to it. This is distinct from the referral to the DAB. A contractor claiming additional time or money for an unforeseen physical condition must issue a notice within 28 days of becoming aware of that condition. Late notice does not automatically extinguish the claim under all FIDIC sub-clauses, but it severely weakens the evidentiary position and, in some formulations, operates as a condition precedent.

The second deadline is the 84-day period for the DAB decision. If the board fails to issue its decision within this period (without agreed extension), either party may treat the matter as a dispute and proceed to arbitration directly. In practice, this is rare – most DABs in Poland issue decisions on time. What is more common is a party missing the 28-day Notice of Dissatisfaction after receiving an adverse decision. That omission makes the decision final and binding. Arbitration is then limited to enforcement, not reconsideration.

For context, the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) has no direct role in construction disputes – but where a project involves a regulated financial institution as funder, the funder's consent to the dispute resolution mechanism may be required under the financing agreement. This is a detail that foreign investors, in particular, overlook.

Specific figures to track: 28 days for initial notice, 84 days for DAB decision, 28 days for Notice of Dissatisfaction, and – once arbitration is initiated – the applicable limitation period under Polish civil law, which is generally 6 years for contract claims.

What mistakes do parties make most often in Polish FIDIC adjudication?

On paper, the procedure is clear. In practice, Polish construction projects generate a predictable set of errors – most of which are avoidable with early legal involvement. The most common mistake is treating the DAB as a formality rather than a substantive proceeding. Parties submit incomplete referral documents, fail to quantify their claims with precision, or present evidence that has not been properly authenticated under Polish evidentiary standards.

A second frequent error involves the DAB appointment itself. Contracts that name a sole adjudicator but fail to specify a replacement mechanism create deadlock when the named individual is unavailable. This is particularly common in contracts adapted from international templates without Polish-law review. The Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy (National Court Register, KRS) filing of the contracting entity does not resolve this – the appointment mechanism is purely contractual.

A third mistake concerns interim payments during the dispute. Under FIDIC, the employer must continue making undisputed payments even while a dispute is pending. Failure to do so triggers its own breach. Polish contractors sometimes accept payment delays without formal protest, inadvertently waiving their right to claim financing costs and interest under the Ustawa o terminach zapłaty (Act on Payment Deadlines in Commercial Transactions).

We assisted a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026) in recovering over EUR 2.1m in disputed variation costs after the employer had attempted to set off those costs against a performance bond call. The DAB found the set-off procedurally improper. The Notice of Dissatisfaction filed by the employer was out of time – making the decision final.

For investors structuring their Polish entry, understanding how FIDIC dispute mechanics interact with tax structuring for Poland investors entering Poland is relevant: the choice of project vehicle affects who is the contracting party and therefore who has standing before the DAB.

How should three different business profiles approach FIDIC adjudication in Poland?

The procedural framework is the same for all parties. The strategic approach differs significantly depending on the business profile, the contract value, and the nature of the dispute.

Manufacturing investor. A foreign manufacturer building a production facility under a FIDIC Red Book contract typically faces disputes over variations and delay. The employer's representative (ER) issues instructions; the contractor argues they constitute variations entitling additional payment. The manufacturer's priority is speed – production timelines do not wait for arbitration. DAB adjudication, with its 84-day window, fits this profile well. The manufacturer should constitute the DAB at contract signature, not when a dispute arises. Early constitution costs roughly PLN 30,000 to PLN 60,000 in adjudicator fees for a three-member board – a fraction of the cost of a prolonged dispute.

IT campus developer. Technology campus projects in Poland often involve multiple contractors working in sequence. FIDIC Silver Book (EPC/Turnkey) is common. Disputes typically concern defects at handover and liquidated damages. The Silver Book gives the employer stronger rights to reject work, but also stricter notice obligations. An IT developer that issues a defect notice after the contractual deadline may find the liquidated damages clause unenforceable. Legal review of the notice chain – before issuing any formal notice – is not optional.

Foreign-owned infrastructure company. Infrastructure projects financed by EU funds incorporate FIDIC conditions by requirement of the financing agreement. The Polish General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways (GDDKiA) uses modified FIDIC Yellow Book conditions. Foreign-owned concession companies must understand that the Polish-language version of the contract controls. Translation disputes about the meaning of FIDIC sub-clauses have arisen in Polish arbitration – and the Polish text prevails. For cross-border real estate and infrastructure structures, the guide on real estate in Luxembourg illustrates how holding structure choices affect dispute standing. For investors from France acquiring Polish assets, the guide on buying property in Poland as a French national provides useful context on ownership structuring that also applies to construction project vehicles.

Across all three profiles, one principle holds: the party that manages the notice chain and the DAB timeline controls the dispute. The party that reacts manages the damage.

What should each profile prepare before filing a DAB referral? The checklist below applies broadly:

  • Certified copies of the contract and all variation orders
  • Contemporaneous site records and correspondence confirming the event date
  • Quantified claim schedule with supporting invoices or expert valuation
  • Evidence of prior notices issued within contractual deadlines
  • Confirmation that the DAB is properly constituted and its appointment is valid

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a party go directly to arbitration in Poland without using the DAB?

A: Only in limited circumstances. If no DAB is in place and the parties cannot agree on appointment within 28 days of a dispute arising, the FIDIC conditions allow direct arbitration under certain sub-clauses. However, Polish courts have treated the DAB requirement as a condition precedent in several cases. Bypassing the DAB without a valid reason risks having the arbitration claim declared inadmissible at the jurisdictional stage. The safer approach is always to constitute the DAB early and use it as intended.

Q: How much does FIDIC adjudication cost in Poland, and who pays?

A: A three-member DAB for a major Polish infrastructure project typically costs between PLN 80,000 and PLN 250,000 in total adjudicator fees, depending on the dispute's complexity and duration. Under standard FIDIC conditions, the parties share costs equally unless the DAB directs otherwise. Legal representation before the DAB adds further cost – typically PLN 40,000 to PLN 120,000 per party for a well-prepared referral and response. A sole adjudicator model, used on smaller contracts, reduces costs significantly. The investment is almost always justified: a single uncontested DAB decision can resolve a PLN 5m dispute in under three months.

Q: Does a DAB decision have to be enforced through Polish courts?

A: A binding DAB decision is not automatically enforceable as a court judgment. If the losing party refuses to comply, the prevailing party must initiate arbitration to obtain an award, and then seek enforcement of that award through the Polish courts. This enforcement route is well-established. The Sąd Okręgowy (Regional Court) with jurisdiction over the debtor's assets handles recognition and enforcement proceedings. The process typically takes 3 to 6 months from award to enforcement order. The key point: compliance with a DAB decision is a contractual obligation – non-compliance is itself a breach, which strengthens the claimant's position in subsequent arbitration.

Your company's specific situation in a Polish construction dispute requires early assessment of the notice chain and DAB constitution. Delay in that assessment can foreclose procedural options that cannot be recovered later.

If your project involves a FIDIC-based contract with a claim value above PLN 500,000 – or a Notice of Dissatisfaction deadline approaching within 28 days – our team will review the notice chain, assess the DAB constitution, and advise on referral strategy: info@kordeckipartners.com.

KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to construction disputes, FIDIC adjudication, and real estate transactions. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. KORDECKI & Partners assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@kordeckipartners.com.