A Warsaw-based contractor submits a variation claim worth several million zloty. The employer disputes every line. Both parties have signed a FIDIC-based contract governed by Polish law – yet neither side is certain how the dispute board process actually works in a Polish court context. The gap between international FIDIC practice and domestic Polish procedure is where projects stall and money disappears.

Under Polish construction law, FIDIC adjudication clauses are enforceable, but their interaction with the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC) and the Prawo budowlane (Construction Law Act, PBA) creates specific procedural obligations that differ from standard international FIDIC practice. A Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) decision must be issued within 84 days of the referral, and failure to issue a prompt-payment notice within 28 days of that decision forfeits the right to challenge it in Polish arbitration or litigation. Parties who treat Polish FIDIC adjudication as a formality routinely lose enforceable positions that cannot be recovered.

This guide covers the full adjudication cycle under Polish FIDIC contracts: the step-by-step procedure, key deadlines, cost exposure, three business scenarios drawn from infrastructure and commercial construction, and the most common mistakes that result in irreversible forfeiture of claims. Each section includes a self-assessment checkpoint so your team can identify risk before it crystallises.

What is FIDIC adjudication and how does it fit Polish law?

FIDIC adjudication is a contractual, time-bound process for resolving construction disputes before they escalate to arbitration or litigation. The process originates in the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) suite of contracts – the Red Book for construction, the Yellow Book for design-and-build, and the Silver Book for EPC/turnkey projects. In Poland, public procurement contracts for infrastructure above the EU threshold must reference FIDIC or an equivalent framework under the Prawo zamówień publicznych (Public Procurement Law, PZP). This means the DAB mechanism is not merely a private arrangement – it has statutory context.

Polish courts, including the Warsaw Court of Arbitration (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej, SA KIG), treat a DAB decision as a binding interim determination. It is not a final award. It creates a payment obligation that can be enforced through Polish civil courts while the underlying dispute continues. The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) records of the contracting parties are relevant here: enforcement actions target registered assets, and a creditor armed with a DAB decision and a court enforcement order can move against those assets within days.

The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) is less directly relevant to construction, but matters where the project involves regulated entities – for example, a developer listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. In those cases, the materiality of a DAB decision may trigger disclosure obligations. The interaction of FIDIC adjudication with Polish insolvency law is also worth flagging: if the employer becomes insolvent during the adjudication window, the DAB process is stayed and the contractor must file a claim in insolvency proceedings instead.

  • Red Book (construction by contractor) – most common on Polish public infrastructure
  • Yellow Book (design-and-build) – standard for PPP and rail projects
  • Silver Book (EPC/turnkey) – used in energy and industrial construction
  • FIDIC 2017 edition – introduces a three-tier DAAB mechanism not yet standard in Poland
  • Bespoke FIDIC – many Polish public contracts modify standard FIDIC clauses significantly

The self-assessment checkpoint here is simple: does your contract actually contain a DAB clause, or has it been deleted or modified by the employer's special conditions? Polish public employers frequently remove or truncate DAB provisions. If the clause is absent, adjudication is unavailable and the dispute goes directly to arbitration or court – with timelines measured in years, not months.

What is the step-by-step adjudication procedure under Polish FIDIC?

The procedure begins with a notice of dispute. Under standard FIDIC terms, either party may refer a dispute to the DAB at any time. The referring party must serve a written referral on the DAB and the other party simultaneously. The referral must identify the dispute precisely – Polish courts have held that a vague referral that does not specify the claim amount and contractual basis fails to trigger the 84-day clock. That failure can be costly: the opposing party may argue the referral was defective and that no binding DAB decision can follow.

Once a valid referral is served, the responding party has 28 days to submit its response. The DAB may request further submissions, hold a hearing, and inspect the site. In Poland, site inspections under FIDIC are treated as evidence-gathering steps equivalent to a court-appointed expert visit under the KPC. The DAB must issue its decision within 84 days of the referral, unless both parties agree to extend. Extensions beyond 84 days require written consent – a verbal agreement is unenforceable under Polish law.

We obtained interim court measures protecting a contractor's payment position worth over PLN 8m for a civil engineering client in the Mazowieckie region (spring 2025). The DAB had issued a decision in the contractor's favour, but the employer refused to pay. A swift application to the Warsaw District Court secured an enforcement order within 72 hours of the DAB decision becoming binding.

After the DAB issues its decision, each party has 28 days to serve a notice of dissatisfaction (NOD). If no NOD is served, the decision becomes final and binding – it cannot be challenged in arbitration or court. This is the single most consequential deadline in the entire process. Missing the 28-day NOD window forfeits the right to dispute the decision permanently. Polish courts have consistently refused to extend this period, treating it as a contractual limitation that the KPC does not override.

  • Day 0 – referral served on DAB and other party
  • Day 28 – response from opposing party due
  • Day 84 – DAB decision deadline (extendable by written consent only)
  • Day 112 – NOD deadline (28 days after decision)
  • Post-NOD – arbitration or litigation commences

If the employer fails to comply with a binding DAB decision, the contractor's remedy under Polish law is a direct enforcement action in the district court. This does not require re-opening the underlying dispute. The court examines only whether the DAB decision is formally valid and whether the payment obligation has not been discharged. Enforcement typically takes 30 to 60 days in Warsaw – faster than most contractors expect.

What are the costs and common mistakes in Polish FIDIC adjudication?

DAB costs in Poland follow the contract's payment schedule for board members. A three-member DAB typically charges a retainer of EUR 1,500 to EUR 3,000 per member per month, plus hearing fees of EUR 2,000 to EUR 5,000 per day. Legal representation for a complex referral – involving delay analysis, quantum expert evidence, and submissions on Polish law – commonly runs between PLN 80,000 and PLN 200,000 per side. These figures are not trivial, but they compare favourably to arbitration costs that routinely exceed PLN 500,000 for disputes of similar size.

The most expensive mistake is failing to preserve the claim in the first place. Under FIDIC, a contractor who does not serve a notice of claim within 28 days of becoming aware of an event loses the right to additional payment or time. Polish courts treat this clause as a contractual time bar. Unlike some common-law jurisdictions, Polish law does not readily imply a waiver of the time bar by the employer's conduct. If the notice was not sent, the claim is gone – personal liability of the project manager for that omission can follow under general Polish civil law principles.

A second common mistake is appointing a DAB member who lacks familiarity with Polish procurement law. FIDIC adjudication in Poland is not purely technical. Disputes frequently involve PZP rules on contract modifications, PBA requirements for building permits, and KPC procedural standards for evidence. A board member who applies only international FIDIC practice without understanding Polish statutory constraints may issue a decision that is unenforceable in Polish courts – wasting months of procedure and tens of thousands in fees.

For a broader view of personal liability exposure that construction directors face alongside adjudication risk, see our guide on board liability under Polish corporate law.

How do three business scenarios play out in Polish FIDIC adjudication?

Understanding adjudication in the abstract is useful. Seeing it applied to specific business situations is more useful. The three scenarios below cover the most common dispute patterns on Polish construction projects: a public infrastructure contractor, an IT-sector fit-out developer, and a foreign investor building a logistics facility.

Scenario 1 – Infrastructure contractor (public road project). A Polish general contractor on a motorway project disputes the employer's rejection of a variation for unforeseen ground conditions. The contract is a FIDIC Red Book modified by PZP special conditions. The employer's special conditions have shortened the NOD period from 28 days to 14 days. The contractor misses the 14-day window by three days. The DAB decision, which had awarded PLN 4.2m, becomes final and binding against the contractor's own interests. The lesson: always check special conditions for shortened time bars before signing.

Scenario 2 – IT-sector office fit-out (Warsaw, private employer). A technology company commissions a bespoke fit-out worth PLN 12m. The contract uses FIDIC Yellow Book principles adapted for interior works. A dispute arises over delay caused by the employer's late approval of design drawings. The contractor refers the dispute to a sole adjudicator (the parties agreed to a DAB of one) within the 28-day notice window. The adjudicator issues a decision within 56 days – well within the 84-day limit. The employer serves no NOD. The decision for PLN 1.8m becomes binding and is enforced through the Warsaw courts within 45 days.

Scenario 3 – German logistics investor (Lower Silesia, greenfield warehouse). A German investor developing a 50,000 square metre warehouse in Lower Silesia engages a Polish general contractor under a bespoke FIDIC Silver Book. The contractor claims EUR 2.3m for acceleration costs. The investor argues the acceleration was not instructed in writing as required by the contract. The DAB, applying Polish law on implied instructions, finds in the contractor's favour for EUR 1.1m. Both parties serve NODs. The dispute proceeds to ICC arbitration seated in Warsaw. We secured a favourable interim award protecting EUR 1.1m for the investor's Polish subsidiary (autumn 2025).

Foreign investors in Poland should note that property acquisition issues and construction disputes often overlap. Our guide on buying property in Poland as a Spain national addresses the underlying real estate framework that governs site ownership in scenarios like the one above.

What should you prepare before referring a dispute to the DAB?

Preparation determines outcomes in FIDIC adjudication more than any other factor. A well-prepared referral that presents the claim clearly, attaches the right contractual and factual evidence, and anticipates the employer's defences will almost always outperform a technically stronger claim that is poorly organised. Polish adjudicators – and Polish courts reviewing DAB decisions – apply strict standards to the quality of submissions.

The checklist below reflects what our team assembles before every FIDIC referral. It is not exhaustive, but missing any item on it typically results in a weaker decision or an enforcement problem later.

  • Complete contract documents including all special conditions and employer's requirements
  • Contemporaneous notices of claim served within the contractual time bar
  • Programme and delay analysis prepared by a qualified scheduling expert
  • Quantum assessment with supporting invoices, daywork records, and cost build-ups
  • Correspondence log showing the employer's knowledge of the disputed event

The quantum assessment deserves particular attention. Polish courts scrutinise DAB decisions for adequate evidentiary support. A decision that awards a global sum without supporting calculation is vulnerable to challenge in enforcement proceedings. The district court is not supposed to reopen the merits, but a poorly reasoned DAB decision invites creative objections from losing employers who have every incentive to delay payment.

Timeline and cost planning also matter. Budget for at least 12 weeks from referral to enforcement. Factor in DAB fees, legal costs, and the possibility that the employer will serve a NOD and force the dispute into arbitration. For projects with cross-border ownership structures, consider whether the arbitration clause designates ICC, the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC), or the SA KIG in Warsaw – each has different cost and timeline profiles.

For investors whose Polish construction project sits within a broader property acquisition, our guide on buying property in Poland as a Netherlands national explains the land registration and encumbrance framework that affects enforcement of DAB-related payment obligations.

To receive an expert assessment of your FIDIC dispute position before the next deadline passes, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a DAB decision be enforced in Polish courts even if the underlying dispute is still ongoing?

A: Yes. A binding DAB decision creates an immediate payment obligation under Polish law, separate from the final resolution of the dispute. The party in whose favour the decision was issued may apply to the district court for an enforcement order without waiting for the NOD process or any subsequent arbitration to conclude. The court examines only the formal validity of the decision and the outstanding payment – it does not reopen the merits. This is one of the most powerful features of FIDIC adjudication in the Polish legal context.

Q: How long does the full adjudication process take, and what does it cost?

A: From referral to a binding decision, the process takes a minimum of 84 days under standard FIDIC terms. In practice, most Polish adjudications conclude within 90 to 120 days when site inspections and additional submissions are required. Legal costs for a mid-sized dispute (PLN 2m to PLN 10m) typically range from PLN 80,000 to PLN 200,000 per side, plus DAB member fees. Enforcement through the courts adds approximately 30 to 60 days and relatively modest court fees calculated as a percentage of the claim value under Polish procedural law.

Q: Is it true that FIDIC adjudication clauses are sometimes unenforceable in Polish public contracts?

A: This is a common misconception. FIDIC adjudication clauses are enforceable in Polish public contracts, but they must comply with the Public Procurement Law framework. Some public employers use special conditions that modify or restrict the standard DAB mechanism – shortening time bars, limiting the scope of referrable disputes, or substituting a different dispute resolution body. These modifications are valid if they were included in the procurement documents and accepted by the contractor at signing. The clause is not unenforceable – it is simply different from the FIDIC standard. Always review the special conditions before assuming standard FIDIC rules apply.

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.