Quantum Disputes under FIDIC:
Can the DAB Handle Complex Claims?

Signature Litigation at Berlin Dispute Resolution Days 2026

On 29 September, Signature Litigation’s Frankfurt office hosted a side event at the AXICA Congress and Convention Center in Berlin. The panel asked whether Dispute Adjudication Boards (DABs) or Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Boards (DAABs) under FIDIC can deal with complex quantum disputes, and how their decisions fare once the dispute reaches arbitration.

Dr Wolfgang Peter (Peter & Kim) opened with a keynote on the risk of inflated quantum reports. The panel discussion that followed was moderated by Niyati Asthana, Senior Associate at Signature Litigation. The speakers were:

• Ulrich Helm, Partner, Signature Litigation Frankfurt
• Mark Kelly, Vice President Commercial & Contracts, EQUANS
• Thomas Hofbauer, Senior Managing Director, FTI Consulting
• Claus Lenz, Arbitrator, LDR Lenz Dispute Resolution

Key takeaways

1. For many parties, the DAB is about cash flow

For the party seeking payment, the DAB’s value is the money. The party paying often needs someone to point to to justify payment, and that someone becomes the DAB and its decision. This dynamic pushes ad hoc DABs towards becoming “mini-arbitrations”, whereas standing boards are better in avoiding it.

2. 84 days is ambitious

FIDIC’s 84-day period to conclude the DAB proceedings is regularly extended in practice. Whether the timeline can be met often depends on the complexity of the claim. Scope changes are generally easier to resolve in time while delay and disruption claims are harder, and very large claims and those involving consequential losses are generally difficult for a DAB.

3. Enforceability is the DAB’s selling point, and a risk

FIDIC rules allow DAB decisions to be enforced, which makes the process much more attractive from a cash flow perspective. At the same time, it is important to remember that an arbitral tribunal is not an appellate court and starts afresh. Therefore, a DAB decision is no guarantee of the final outcome and its enforcement carries risks. If the decision turns out to be wrong, significant sums might have been paid or the contractor decided not to accelerate because the DAB granted an extension of time. As a result, one can query whether enforcement should be granted only against security.

4. Splitting the issues could help

To deal with complex quantum, the panel discussed “bifurcating” DAB proceedings. The DAB would decide liability only, and the parties would then be asked to agree quantum between themselves. DABs could also consider extending timelines for the most complex questions, but only for those.

5. Composition: do you need a quantum expert on the board?

When standing DABs are put together at the start of a project, it is difficult to anticipate which questions will arise, and it is therefore hard to say in advance that a quantum expert is needed; an expert on the panel makes sense where quantum is genuinely in issue.

6. Standing boards: worth the cost?

Standing boards accompanying the entire project tend to pay off only on very large projects; however, some state-backed financing regimes even make them mandatory.

7. Try keep referrals narrow

Adjudication works best on very specific points, and overly broad referrals should be avoided, if possible.

Closing thoughts

The panellists’ diverse viewpoints led to a lively and insightful discussion. The shared message was that DABs offer real value in speed and cash flow, but that parties should think carefully about what they refer, who sits on the board, and how much weight a DAB’s quantum findings will carry later.