Delayed Drawings & Instructions: FIDIC Clause 1.9 Notice Guide

This guide walks through FIDIC Clause 1.9 — the Contractor's entitlement when drawings or instructions are issued late — under the 1999 Red Book.

It covers what the clause means, when the entitlement bites, how the "reasonable notice" requirement works in practice, and the mistakes that turn legitimate delay claims into rejected ones. If your project depends on the Engineer's information flow, this is the clause that protects you.

What Clause 1.9 Covers

Clause 1.9 of the 1999 Red Book addresses delayed drawings and instructions from the Engineer. Where the Contractor has given the Engineer prior written notice that a particular drawing or instruction is needed, and the Engineer fails to issue it in time to avoid delay or disruption, the Contractor is entitled to an Extension of Time and Cost.

The clause applies to drawings, instructions, approvals, or other information the Contractor needs from the Engineer to proceed with the Works. It covers:

• Working drawings that supplement the contract drawings
• Shop drawing approvals where the Engineer is the approving authority
• Engineer's instructions required for specific construction decisions
• Details for complex or unusual elements not fully shown at tender stage

Clause 1.9 is one of the most commonly engaged claim clauses on Red Book projects because design rarely keeps pace with site demand. It is also one of the most commonly mishandled, because the "reasonable notice" requirement catches teams who complained informally rather than writing in.

The "Reasonable Notice" Requirement

The critical pre-condition to a 1.9 claim is that the Contractor must have given the Engineer prior written notice of the specific drawing or instruction needed, with enough lead time for the Engineer to issue it before the Contractor actually needs it.

"Reasonable notice" is not defined numerically. It depends on:

• The complexity of the drawing or instruction
• Any contract-specified response times (often set in the Appendix to Tender)
• The Engineer's internal review chain (especially where consultant coordination is required)
• The Contractor's own programme and when the information will be consumed

In practice, a Drawing Information Request Schedule — a rolling log maintained by the Contractor showing each drawing required, the date it is needed on site, and the date by which it must be issued to avoid delay — is the evidence backbone of any later claim. Without it, the Contractor's case often collapses at the "reasonable notice" test.

A useful rule of thumb: if the drawing is needed in week 12, the written request should be submitted in week 4 at the latest, with the required-by date explicitly stated. Verbal reminders at weekly meetings are not a substitute for written requests.

When a Drawing Delay Becomes a Claim

Not every late drawing produces a valid 1.9 claim. Four conditions must typically be met:

1. Prior written notice — the Contractor must have requested the specific drawing or instruction in writing, in reasonable time
2. Engineer failure — the drawing or instruction must not have been issued in time to avoid delay or disruption
3. Actual delay or disruption — the late issue must have affected the Contractor's ability to proceed with the programmed work
4. Timely Clause 20.1 notice — within 28 days of awareness that the delay will occur

The third condition is often the sharpest. A drawing that arrives two weeks late but relates to non-critical work — or to work with sufficient float — may not trigger a valid claim. The Engineer will look closely at whether the delay had a real programme impact.

The fourth condition is where many otherwise valid claims die. The 28-day clock starts when the Contractor becomes aware that the drawing will be late enough to affect the Works — which is often before the physical delay actually happens on site. Waiting for the standing time to begin before drafting the notice usually means missing the deadline.

Critical Path vs Non-Critical Drawings

Drawings that arrive late are only claimable under 1.9 if they affect activities on the critical path. Late drawings for non-critical work may cause frustration and re-sequencing, but if there is enough float to absorb the delay, there is no Extension of Time claim.

A disruption or cost claim may still be available if the re-sequencing caused demonstrable productivity loss — but that is a different animal from a 1.9 EoT claim.

This means programme management is a core part of any 1.9 claim strategy. Contractors who know where their critical path sits in real time can identify which drawing delays actually matter. Contractors who only look at the programme when a claim is brewing usually struggle to prove critical-path impact after the fact.

A short, disciplined approach:

• Identify which drawings feed the critical path each month
• Prioritise information requests for those drawings
• Track Engineer response times for each requested item
• Escalate early where a critical-path drawing is slipping

How to Draft a 1.9 Notice

A robust Clause 1.9 notice should include:

• References to Clauses 1.9 and 20.1 — both substantive and procedural anchors
• Identification of the specific drawing or instruction — title, reference number, required-by date
• Evidence of prior written request — date, reference number, response time requested
• The Engineer's actual issuance position — not issued, issued late, or partially issued
• Impact description — which activities were affected, and the criticality
• Both time and cost reserved — Clause 1.9 gives both
• Confirmation of 42-day particulars — including that the claim may continue if the drawing remains outstanding

The strongest 1.9 notices are almost clinical. They identify the exact drawing, the exact request, the exact Engineer response date, and the exact impact. When the notice is later followed up with a programme analysis showing the critical-path effect, the claim becomes difficult to dismiss.

Evidence You Need

Clause 1.9 claims are paperwork-heavy. The evidence usually includes:

• Drawing Information Request Schedule — the rolling log showing each request, required-by date, and actual issue date
• Formal request correspondence — the written requests sent to the Engineer (numbered and logged)
• Engineer responses — including partial responses, requests for clarification, or silence
• Programme analysis — linking the drawing slippage to specific critical-path activities
• Daily site reports — showing work that could not proceed without the drawing
• Cost records — for any standing time, acceleration, or disruption costs claimed

The single most important document is the Drawing Information Request Schedule. Maintained consistently from day one of the project, it is both a project management tool and a claims backbone. Teams that run this well rarely lose 1.9 claims; teams that run it poorly or not at all rarely win them.

Common Mistakes With 1.9 Notices

• No prior written request. Complaining about late drawings verbally at meetings and then claiming under 1.9 without a formal request paper trail. Almost always rejected.
• Vague requests. Asking the Engineer "for more information soon" without identifying the specific drawing and required-by date. Does not satisfy reasonable notice.
• Late 28-day notice. Waiting until the site delay actually materialises rather than notifying at awareness of the coming slippage.
• Non-critical drawings. Claiming EoT for drawing delays on float-protected activities. No critical-path impact, no EoT.
• Bundling multiple drawings. Lumping ten late drawings into one notice at month-end. Each one is its own event with its own awareness date.
• Wrong clause. Using Clause 1.9 for drawings that contain errors requiring correction — that is usually Clause 13 (Variation) territory, not 1.9.
• No escalation. Flagging a slipping drawing in the information request schedule but not escalating in writing to the Engineer when the slippage approaches a critical threshold.

Frequently Asked Questions