A contractor on a major Warsaw infrastructure project submits a claim for prolongation costs. The employer rejects it. Both parties face months of uncertainty, mounting costs, and a contract that requires a formal decision before arbitration can even begin. That decision belongs to the Dispute Adjudication Board.

Under FIDIC-based contracts used in Poland, the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) issues a binding decision within 84 days of receiving a dispute referral. Either party may challenge that decision by issuing a Notice of Dissatisfaction within 28 days – but the decision remains immediately enforceable pending arbitration. Failure to comply with a DAB decision, or failure to refer a dispute to the DAB before going to arbitration, forfeits the right to pursue that claim further.

This guide covers the full adjudication cycle under Polish FIDIC contracts: how to trigger the process correctly, what timelines apply, how Polish courts and the National Court Register (KRS) interact with the procedure, and where parties lose their claims through procedural error. Three business scenarios illustrate the most common fact patterns encountered in Polish construction practice.

How does FIDIC adjudication work in Poland?

FIDIC contracts – particularly the Red Book (construction), Yellow Book (plant and design-build), and Silver Book (EPC/turnkey) – are the standard framework for large Polish infrastructure and commercial construction projects. The DAB mechanism sits between the engineer's determination and international arbitration. It is not optional. Skipping the DAB and proceeding directly to arbitration is a jurisdictional defect that arbitral tribunals and Polish courts have used to dismiss claims entirely.

The process opens when one party sends a formal Notice of Dispute to the DAB and the other party. The DAB then has 84 days to issue its decision. That period can be extended only with the agreement of both parties. The decision must be written, reasoned, and served on both parties simultaneously. Polish construction practice has produced disputes over whether email service satisfies this requirement – it does, provided the contract does not specify otherwise.

The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) and the National Court Register (KRS) are not directly involved in DAB proceedings. However, where a project involves a publicly regulated entity or a state-owned employer, the General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways (GDDKiA) procurement rules may impose additional procedural layers before a DAB referral is valid.

One practical point worth flagging: parties often confuse the engineer's determination under the contract with a DAB decision. They are distinct. An engineer's determination that goes unchallenged within 28 days becomes final – but it is not a DAB decision and cannot be enforced as one. Conflating the two is a common and costly mistake.

What is the step-by-step adjudication procedure and timeline?

The adjudication timetable under Polish FIDIC is tight and largely non-negotiable. Missing a single deadline can extinguish a valid claim. The procedure runs in four phases, each with a fixed window.

Phase 1 – Claim notification (Day 0 to Day 28): The claiming party must notify the engineer of the event giving rise to a claim within 28 days of becoming aware of it. Late notification does not automatically bar the claim, but it shifts the burden of proof significantly and gives the employer grounds to argue prejudice.

Phase 2 – Engineer's determination (Day 28 to Day 84): The engineer has 42 days to issue a determination after receiving a fully particularised claim. If the engineer fails to act within that period, either party may treat the failure as a rejection and refer the dispute to the DAB immediately.

Phase 3 – DAB referral and decision (Day 84 to Day 168): The referring party sends the Notice of Dispute. The DAB has 84 days to decide. During this phase, the DAB may request further submissions, hold a hearing, or conduct a site visit. Costs of the DAB – typically split equally – run from referral to decision and can reach PLN 150,000 or more on complex disputes.

Phase 4 – Notice of Dissatisfaction and arbitration (Day 168 onward): Either party has 28 days after the DAB decision to issue a Notice of Dissatisfaction. If neither party does so, the decision becomes final and binding. If a Notice is issued, the dispute may proceed to arbitration – but the DAB decision remains enforceable in the interim.

  • Day 0–28: notify engineer of claim event
  • Day 28–84: engineer issues determination (or is deemed to have rejected)
  • Day 84–168: DAB referral, hearing, and decision
  • Day 168–196: Notice of Dissatisfaction window
  • Day 196+: arbitration if dissatisfaction notice served

We secured a reversal of a contractor's rejected prolongation claim worth over PLN 3.2m for a civil engineering client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The key was reconstructing the notification chain to show that the 28-day clock had not yet started when the employer argued it had expired.

What are the three most common scenarios and how are they handled?

Polish FIDIC disputes cluster around three recurring fact patterns. Understanding the applicable instrument and timeline for each helps parties avoid the procedural traps that extinguish otherwise valid claims.

Scenario 1 – Manufacturing sector employer, subcontractor payment dispute. A Silesian manufacturing group acts as employer under a Yellow Book contract for a new production facility. The main contractor submits a variation claim. The employer instructs the engineer to reject it. The contractor has 28 days from the engineer's determination to refer to the DAB. Missing that window does not terminate the claim outright, but it allows the employer to raise a time-bar defence that Polish-seated arbitral tribunals have increasingly accepted. The contractor should refer immediately and simultaneously preserve its right to interest – currently running at the statutory rate of 11.25% per annum – from the date payment was due.

Scenario 2 – IT sector tenant, fit-out construction dispute. A Warsaw technology company commissions a specialist fit-out contractor under a bespoke contract incorporating FIDIC Yellow Book conditions. The contractor claims additional costs for design changes. The employer argues the changes fall within the original scope. This is a classic variation valuation dispute. The DAB must assess what the contract's bill of quantities actually covers. For parties in this position, the office lease review guide for commercial tenants provides useful background on how fit-out obligations interact with lease terms – relevant where the construction contract and the lease are linked documents.

Scenario 3 – Foreign investor, EPC dispute. A German investor developing a logistics park in Lower Silesia under a Silver Book contract faces a contractor claim for force majeure relief following supply chain disruption. Silver Book contracts allocate more risk to the contractor than Red or Yellow Book. The employer's position is strong – but only if the contract has been properly incorporated under Polish law. Foreign investors should note that Polish courts apply the Kodeks cywilny (Civil Code, KC) to fill gaps in FIDIC contracts, and the KC's force majeure provisions are narrower than FIDIC Sub-Clause 19. For broader context on how Polish corporate structures affect liability in project companies, see our analysis of subsidiary liability in Polish corporate groups.

Our team obtained interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 4m for a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), preserving security while the DAB procedure ran its course.

Where do parties lose their claims – and how can that be avoided?

Procedural error is the leading cause of claim loss in Polish FIDIC adjudication. The errors are predictable. Most are avoidable with basic contract management discipline.

The first and most damaging error is late notification. Polish courts have upheld time-bar clauses in FIDIC contracts as valid contractual limitations, not penalties. A contractor that misses the 28-day notification window faces a near-impossible burden to show the employer suffered no prejudice. The fix is simple: notify early, notify in writing, and preserve the notification record.

The second error is inadequate particularisation. A claim must state the contractual basis, the factual basis, and the quantum. Submitting a one-page letter that says "we claim additional costs" does not start the 42-day engineer's determination clock. The engineer can legitimately wait for a fully particularised claim. Parties that do not understand this lose weeks – sometimes months – of the timeline.

The third error is bypassing the DAB entirely. Some parties, frustrated by the process, issue a Notice of Dissatisfaction before the DAB has issued its decision. That notice is invalid. Arbitration commenced on the basis of an invalid Notice of Dissatisfaction will be dismissed. Personal liability for wasted costs can follow for directors who authorise that strategy without proper advice. For investors considering property acquisitions where construction disputes affect asset value, the guide to buying property in Poland covers how unresolved construction claims are treated in due diligence.

What to prepare before referring a dispute to the DAB:

  • Complete notification record with dates and delivery confirmation
  • Fully particularised claim with contractual basis and quantum
  • Engineer's determination or evidence of deemed rejection
  • DAB appointment confirmation and fee arrangement
  • Evidence file organised chronologically with indexed correspondence

A fourth error – less common but equally fatal – is failing to enforce a DAB decision while arbitration is pending. A party that wins a DAB decision and does nothing while the other side stalls through arbitration may find its security position eroded. Polish courts will enforce DAB decisions as contractual obligations. Apply promptly.

Specific situation requires immediate attention. If your company is facing a FIDIC dispute where a notification deadline has passed or a DAB decision has not been enforced, the consequences may already be irreversible without urgent legal intervention.

To receive an expert assessment of your FIDIC dispute position – including notification validity, DAB referral strategy, and enforcement options – contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a DAB decision be enforced by a Polish court before arbitration concludes?

A: Yes. Polish courts treat a binding DAB decision as a contractual obligation. The creditor party may apply for a payment order or seek enforcement under the Code of Civil Procedure without waiting for arbitration to finish. The debtor's only defence is that the decision is void on its face – not that it is wrong on the merits. Enforcement proceedings typically take between three and six months before Warsaw District Court.

Q: How much does a full DAB procedure cost in Poland?

A: Costs vary by dispute complexity and DAB composition. A sole adjudicator on a straightforward claim may charge PLN 50,000 to PLN 80,000 in total fees. A three-member DAB on a complex infrastructure dispute can exceed PLN 300,000. Costs are normally split equally between the parties unless the DAB decides otherwise. Legal representation costs are additional and depend on the volume of submissions and hearing time required.

Q: Is the FIDIC DAB mechanism mandatory under Polish public procurement contracts?

A: Public procurement contracts in Poland are governed by the Public Procurement Law (Prawo zamówień publicznych, PZP). Where a public authority adopts FIDIC conditions, the DAB mechanism is incorporated by reference and is mandatory. However, some public authorities use modified FIDIC forms that replace the DAB with a contractual conciliation panel. Always check the specific contract conditions. Bypassing the contractually required dispute resolution step – whether DAB or conciliation – will be treated as a jurisdictional defect in any subsequent arbitration or litigation.

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.