Notice of Dissatisfaction Under FIDIC: The 28-Day Rule + Template
The DAB decision arrives on a Tuesday, and it is bad — the board has awarded a fraction of what the claim was worth. The team is furious, the lawyers are consulted, opinions are gathered. Four weeks later somebody asks whether anyone actually told the other side the decision was disputed. Silence. Under FIDIC, that silence just made the decision final and binding. This guide covers the letter that prevents it — the notice of dissatisfaction — and the 28 days you get to send it.
What a Notice of Dissatisfaction Is
A notice of dissatisfaction — the NOD — is the short letter that keeps a dispute alive. Under Sub-Clause 20.4 of the FIDIC 1999 Red Book, when the Dispute Adjudication Board gives its decision, either Party that is dissatisfied must say so, in writing, within 28 days of receiving it. The NOD is what preserves the right to take the dispute onward to arbitration.
It is not an appeal, and it does not argue the case. It is closer to a registered objection: this decision is disputed, here is the matter, here are the reasons, and the Party intends to pursue it. The arguing happens later, in front of a tribunal — but only if the NOD was served in time.
The 2017 Second Edition widens the NOD's reach in a way that catches people out: under Sub-Clause 3.7, the Engineer's own determinations now also become final and binding unless a NOD is given within 28 days. Under the 1999 forms, disagreeing with the Engineer meant referring the dispute to the DAB; under 2017, sitting quietly on a bad determination for a month closes it permanently.
Key Takeaway: The NOD is the letter that stops a DAB decision — and under FIDIC 2017, an Engineer's determination — from becoming final and binding. It preserves the route to arbitration; it does not argue the case. The deadline is 28 days from receiving the decision.
The Harshest Time Bar in FIDIC
Most FIDIC deadlines punish lateness by weakening a claim. This one ends it. If no NOD is given within 28 days, the decision becomes final and binding on both Parties — no arbitration, no reopening, no second look at the merits. The 28-day claim notice under Sub-Clause 20.1 at least leaves room to argue about when awareness arose; the NOD clock starts on a documented, dated event — the receipt of the decision — and there is nothing to argue about.
What makes it dangerous in practice is the timing of the mood. A bad decision triggers analysis: teams re-read the reasoning, brief management, seek opinions on prospects. All of that is sensible, and none of it stops the clock. The NOD does not require the Party to have decided anything about arbitration — it only requires the Party to keep the door open. Send it first; deliberate afterwards.
There is a mirror-image trap for the winning side too. A decision that is only partly favourable is still a decision — if the won part is fine but the lost part is not, the NOD must say so within the same 28 days. Satisfaction with half a decision does not extend the deadline on the other half.
Key Takeaway: No NOD within 28 days means the decision is final and binding — the merits are closed forever, and the clock runs from a hard, documented date. Serving the NOD commits you to nothing; not serving it commits you to everything.
Notice of Dissatisfaction Template — Copy and Adapt
Here is a skeleton to fill in. Replace everything in square brackets and delete the brackets. It is drafted to satisfy the stricter 2017 wording — an express label, the matter in dispute, and the reasons — which also makes it safely more than the 1999 forms require.
Address it to the other Party — not to the board. The NOD is a notice between the Parties; the DAB or DAAB and the Engineer receive copies. And serve it by the method the contract's notices clause specifies, with proof of delivery kept, because if anything in FIDIC ever turns on a date, it is this one.
Key Takeaway: Label it expressly as a Notice of Dissatisfaction, identify the decision by date and reference, state which parts are disputed and why, and address it to the other Party with copies to the board and Engineer. Serve by the contractual method and keep the proof.
Binding vs Final and Binding — You Must Still Comply
Here is the part that surprises even experienced teams: serving the NOD does not suspend the decision. A DAB decision is binding from the moment it is given, and both Parties must promptly give effect to it. What the NOD changes is only whether the decision can later be reopened — it keeps the decision from becoming final, but it stays binding in the meantime.
So a Party ordered to pay must pay, NOD or no NOD, and argue for the money back in arbitration. This is not a technicality — the Singapore courts spent years on exactly this question in the Persero litigation and enforced a binding-but-not-final DAB decision against a party that had served its NOD and then simply declined to pay. Withholding compliance because "we've disputed it" turns a defensible position into a breach.
Key Takeaway: The NOD keeps a decision from becoming final; it does not pause it. The decision must be complied with — paid, performed, implemented — while the dispute continues. Comply now, arbitrate later.
What Happens After the NOD
The NOD opens a cooling-off period, not a courtroom door. Under Sub-Clause 20.5 of the 1999 forms, the Parties are to attempt amicable settlement, and arbitration cannot normally be commenced until 56 days have passed since the NOD — even if neither side has any intention of settling. The 2017 forms carry the same structure.
Used well, those 56 days are not dead time. Both sides now know the board's view of the merits, which has a way of making settlement conversations more honest than they were before the referral. A negotiated close during the window costs a fraction of the arbitration that follows it.
If no settlement comes, the dispute proceeds to arbitration — where the tribunal has full power to open up, review, and revise the decision. That power exists only because the NOD was served in time. Every step in the chain hangs on that one letter.
Key Takeaway: After the NOD comes a 56-day amicable settlement window before arbitration can start. Use it — the board's decision gives both sides a sober view of the merits, and settling inside the window is far cheaper than the tribunal that follows.
Common NOD Mistakes
- Sent late. The decision arrived, the analysis began, and day 28 passed mid-deliberation. The single fatal error — everything else on this list is survivable.
- Never labelled. Correspondence that complains about the decision without stating it is a Notice of Dissatisfaction. Under the 2017 forms the express statement is required; under any form, its absence invites the argument that no NOD was ever given.
- No reasons stated. The 2017 forms require the matter in dispute and the reasons. A bare "we are dissatisfied" risks challenge.
- Sent to the wrong recipient. Addressed to the DAB instead of the other Party, or sent to an address the notices clause does not recognise.
- Stopping compliance. Treating the NOD as permission to ignore the decision. The decision stays binding — non-compliance is a separate breach, and an enforceable one.
- Forgetting the Engineer's determination (2017). Teams trained on the 1999 forms assume only DAB decisions need an NOD. Under 2017, an unanswered determination under Sub-Clause 3.7 goes final in 28 days too.
The pattern behind all six is the same: the NOD is a small letter that gets treated as a big decision. It is not. It costs a page, commits the Party to nothing, and preserves everything. When a decision lands and there is any doubt at all, the answer is to send it.
Key Takeaway: NODs fail in six ways: sent late, never labelled as an NOD, giving no reasons, sent to the wrong recipient, treated as permission to stop complying — and under FIDIC 2017, forgetting that the Engineer's determinations need one too. When in doubt, serve it: it preserves everything and commits to nothing.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if no notice of dissatisfaction is given within 28 days?
The decision becomes final and binding on both Parties. Under FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 20.4, a DAB decision that attracts no NOD within 28 days can no longer be opened up in arbitration — the merits are closed permanently, however strong the underlying case was. The same guillotine applies under the 2017 forms, where it also covers the Engineer's determinations under Sub-Clause 3.7.
Do I still have to comply with a DAB decision after serving an NOD?
Yes. The decision is binding from the moment it is given, and both Parties must promptly give effect to it — the NOD only stops it becoming final. A party that serves an NOD and then refuses to pay or perform is in breach, and courts have enforced binding-but-not-final DAB decisions on exactly that basis. Comply now, arbitrate later.
Does an NOD have to say it is a notice of dissatisfaction?
Under the FIDIC 2017 forms, yes — the notice must state that it is a Notice of Dissatisfaction with the decision and set out the matter in dispute and the reasons for dissatisfaction. Under the 1999 forms the wording requirement is lighter, but the safe practice under both is identical: label it expressly, identify the decision by date and reference, and state the reasons. A grumbling email that never uses the words is an invitation to argue it was no NOD at all.
Can I give a notice of dissatisfaction against only part of a decision?
Under the FIDIC 2017 forms, expressly yes — a Party may give an NOD against a part of the decision, in which case the remainder becomes final and binding. Under the 1999 forms partial NODs are not spelled out, so the cautious course is to state precisely which parts are disputed and which are accepted. Precision here controls what an arbitral tribunal can later reopen.
What happens after a notice of dissatisfaction is served?
An amicable settlement window opens: under both the 1999 and 2017 forms the Parties should attempt to settle, and arbitration cannot normally be commenced until 56 days after the NOD. If no settlement is reached, the dispute proceeds to arbitration — where the tribunal can open up and revise the decision, because the NOD kept it from becoming final.
Authoritative Sources
This guide reflects the FIDIC Conditions of Contract and established construction-law authority. For the primary materials, see:
- FIDIC Conditions of Contract — the official contract suite published by the International Federation of Consulting Engineers, which sets out the Sub-Clause 20.4 dispute procedure and the 2017 Clause 21 DAAB regime.
- PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation [2015] SGCA 30 — the Singapore Court of Appeal's leading judgment on enforcing a binding-but-not-final DAB decision where a notice of dissatisfaction had been served.
About the Author
Maisam Jiwani is a Project Director with 15 years' experience on major infrastructure and energy projects administered under FIDIC contracts. He writes from first-hand experience serving notices and managing contractual claims on live projects.