Build Back Without Pause: The CCRF–FIDIC Playbook for Safe, Lawful Infrastructure

 

Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

Build Back Without Pause: The CCRF–FIDIC Playbook for Safe, Lawful Infrastructure

(Construction Continuity and Recovery Framework—CCRF, FIDIC-Compliant)

Executive Summary

The Construction Continuity and Recovery Framework (CCRF) is a neutral, institutional playbook for maintaining the safety, legality, and financial viability of infrastructure projects during social unrest, regime change, and other disruptive shocks. It harmonises operational protocols with FIDIC 2017—especially 17.3–17.4 (Exceptional Events/Force Majeure), 13.7 (Changes in Laws), 8.4–8.5 (Extensions of Time/Authority delay), and 20.1–20.2 (Claims and Dispute Avoidance)—to protect all parties, preserve donor confidence, and enable a timely restart without politicisation.

Purpose & Scope. CCRF equips owners, engineers, contractors, regulators, and donors to (1) protect life and community welfare; (2) legally preserve contracts across regime transitions; (3) stabilise costs and schedules through transparent re-baselining; and (4) accelerate safe resumption of works using a shared governance and data model.

Core Principles.

1. Safety & Human Protection: post-chaos safety SOPs, staged site access, and HSE controls.
2. Project Sustainability: prioritise high-public-value assets with ring-fenced financing and resilient schedules.
3. Political Neutrality: contracts and financing designed to outlast administrations.
4. Transparency & Accountability: open reporting, auditable decisions, and community engagement.

What is New in CCRF?

• Legal Harmonisation: Pre-drafted Force Majeure SOPs (17.3–17.4), Cross-Regime Continuity Addendum (13.7), and EOT/authority delay workflows (8.4–8.5) reduce disputes while enabling compliant adjustments.
• Crisis Recovery Task Force (CRTF): a multi-stakeholder, DAAB-aligned body that validates damage, approves re-baselines, standardises claims, and maintains two-way communications.
• Data-Driven Management: live dashboards, KPIs, and dual recovery timelines (90-day fast track; 180-day gradual) to align funding, logistics, and expectations.
• Community Partnership: structured dialogues and grievance channels to secure access, social license, and safer operations.
• Resilience by Design integrates lessons from post-disaster research, including leadership, early participation, resource assurance, lean methods, and technology (GIS/UAS) for rapid assessments.

Recovery Playbook (Post-Chaos).

1. Rapid Impact Assessment (≤14 days): safety/security audit, damage quantification, social-environmental screening, and cost/schedule impact baseline.
2. Contract Realignment (≤30 days): issue notices, confirm non-breach, quantify entitlements, and execute addenda referencing 17.3–17.4/13.7/8.4–8.5.
3. CRTF Stand-up (≤15 days): confirm mandate, decision rights, and donor/regulator liaisons; publish communication and meeting cadence.
4. Project Restart Protocol: security stabilisation, revalidated program and sequencing, funding reconfirmation, and community re-engagement.

KPIs & Assurance.

• Days to re-baseline; % sites safely reopened; EOT approvals vs. claims cycle time; HSE TRIR; variance to cashflow curve; stakeholder sentiment; % donor/regulatory reports on time; dispute rate and time-to-decision. Dashboards provide single-source situational awareness for employers, engineers, contractors, and financiers.

Risk, Disputes, and Financing.
Early notices, standardised particulars, and DAAB/CRTF interfaces speed determinations and minimise arbitration. Continuity funds/escrows, diversified supply chains, and transparent procurement guard against shocks. Automatic adjustments for changes in law (13.7) preserve economic equilibrium and avoid stoppages.

Expected Outcomes.
Faster, safer restarts; legally robust continuity across political transitions; reduced cost/schedule volatility; improved investor/donor assurance; and stronger community trust. Over time, CCRF shifts the sector from reactive Recovery to proactive resilience—ensuring nation-building does not pause when governance falters.

Immediate Actions for Adoption.
Appoint a national CCRF sponsor; issue an executive instruction recognising CCRF + FIDIC harmonisation; constitute CRTF(s); approve model clauses and templates; launch dashboards and dual-timeline planning; and require community engagement plans before remobilisation.

1. The Imperatives of Construction Continuity

 

Construction is highly exposed to socio-political shocks, disasters, and pandemics. CCRF treats infrastructure as stabilisation capital: it sustains essential services and economic Recovery when governance is uncertain. The framework integrates technical, legal, and operational strategies, enabling projects to pivot quickly while maintaining public interest and investor confidence. It also embeds lessons on critical success factors, risk planning, and resource management.

In the contemporary landscape, construction projects face heightened vulnerability due to socio-political turbulence, natural disasters, and pandemics, necessitating robust frameworks like the Construction Continuity and Recovery Framework (CCRF). The emergence of the CCRF reveals a critical understanding that infrastructure acts as a stabilising factor in tumultuous contexts, providing essential services and economic revitalisation. The implications of abrupt chaos, such as social unrest or natural calamities, lead to direct threats to infrastructure integrity and contract enforcement. Thus, the CCRF is designed as a multifaceted approach that combines technical, legal, and operational strategies to ensure swift Recovery and continuity of construction activities, thereby maintaining both public interest and investor confidence amid governance uncertainty (Liu et al., 2016).

1.1 When Chaos Strikes: A Synergistic Strategy for Stability

Periods of chaos frequently disrupt ongoing infrastructure projects, leading to deteriorated community trust, stalled funding, and ruptured supply chains. Addressing these challenges requires an integrated and systematic response that considers a multitude of factors. Liu et al. emphasise the necessity of establishing critical success factors, particularly in post-disaster recovery scenarios, highlighting that an inclusive approach considering stakeholder interests is essential for successful outcomes (Liu et al., 2016). By leveraging a collaborative environment among various actors involved in construction and Recovery, the CCRF affords a comprehensive strategy that acknowledges the diversity of needs arising in chaotic contexts.

Moreover, the framing of Recovery within a national guideline expands the operability of the CCRF beyond immediate responses to encompass long-term resilience and sustainability principles. A holistic perspective enables construction stakeholders to anticipate potential disruptions through careful planning and innovative resource management, as discussed by Chang et al. (2012). Addressing underlying vulnerabilities through careful resource management and risk assessment can significantly enhance project performance (Rad et al., 2022).

1.2 Enhancing Governance Through Legal Frameworks and Contracts

The legal landscape surrounding construction contracts in unstable environments presents both risks and opportunities for recovery actions. Within the context of the CCRF, frameworks must be established that are adaptable to shifting socio-political realities. The insights from Guo et al. draw attention to the increased vulnerabilities in project management following crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring a need for resilience in contractual frameworks that can adapt to changing requirements and contexts (Guo et al., 2023). Consequently, having a robust legal backbone enables stakeholders to navigate uncertainties effectively, retain legitimacy in operations, and thus ensure project sustainability even during challenging periods.

Additionally, effective policy and regulatory reform as a component of the CCRF serves to reinforce investor and public confidence in the recovery process. The efficacy of legal architecture is further reiterated in studies examining participatory frameworks, which underline the importance of involving local communities in the planning phases, ensuring that recovery efforts align with the needs and expectations of those affected (Venable et al., 2018; Mannakkara & Wilkinson, 2015). Engaging stakeholders reinforces transparency and Accountability, essential attributes for long-term sustainability in chaotic and fragmented contexts.

1.3 Infrastructure Resilience: A Framework for Continuous Recovery

The CCRF methodologically formulates guidelines that prioritise resilience and Recovery in infrastructure systems designed to withstand and adapt to future disruptions. Research emphasises that infrastructure recovery must be tailored to include comprehensive planning that anticipates post-chaos disturbances (Jouannic et al., 2016). The CCRF provides a structured approach to address both immediate Recovery and long-term resilience systematically. By facilitating partnerships among private, public, and community actors, the framework aims to optimise the use of resources, minimise excess costs, and expedite the restoration process.

Moreover, the integration of best practices from successful recovery models, such as those observed in New Zealand's post-disaster recovery projects, highlights the crucial role of leadership in managing recovery operations (Witton et al., 2019). Transformational leadership drives innovation and responsiveness throughout the recovery process, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of the recovery initiative. The complexities of chaotic environments necessitate leaders who can communicate and motivate diverse teams towards shared recovery goals, aligning with the CCRF's principles of adaptability.

1.4 A Tech-Driven Approach to Construction Continuity

The incorporation of technological tools into the CCRF amplifies the response capabilities of construction entities in post-chaos environments. Geographic information systems (GIS) and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) can significantly enhance the effectiveness of recovery operations by aiding in mapping disaster impact and coordinating efforts (Soulakellis et al., 2020). Furthermore, the employment of advanced project management software can streamline resource allocation, reduce redundancy, and provide vital data for SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis, thereby enabling stakeholders to devise informed strategies for Recovery (Walker & Steinfort, 2013).

Technological innovations can also promote greater engagement and collaboration among construction teams and local communities. Developing platforms for real-time data sharing can enhance the communication framework essential for expediting recovery actions. In cases of chaos, rapid assessment tools that focus on damage evaluation and infrastructure resilience can catalyse quicker recovery decisions, ultimately fostering a proactive rather than reactive recovery stance.

1.5 Best Practices from Global Perspectives on Chaos Management

Examining the historical context of disaster recovery, particularly in regions such as Japan and New Zealand, reveals significant comparative lessons for implementing CCRF. The criteria outlined in these frameworks emphasise the significance of pre-existing relationships among stakeholders and community engagement in mitigation strategies (Earnest, 2015). Ensuring local buy-in cultivates a sense of ownership and increases compliance with recovery actions, while fostering social cohesion that is crucial for long-term resilience.

Further, successful examples often depict the importance of tailored recovery frameworks that consider local contexts, emphasising adaptability and responsiveness. Li et al. highlight the post-COVID challenges faced by construction projects in China, underscoring the need for integrated frameworks that account for various sustainability concerns alongside operational priorities (Guo et al., 2023). These strategies underscore the need to tailor recovery approaches to the unique circumstances of affected communities, ensuring that collaborative dynamics among stakeholders remain priority objectives throughout the recovery lifecycle.

1.6 Challenges in Implementing the CCRF

Despite well-founded approaches in recovery frameworks, several obstacles inhibit the effective operationalisation of the CCRF. One significant barrier lies in bureaucratic inertia and governance deficiencies that can hinder swift implementation. The chaotic nature of the post-crisis environment can exacerbate existing regulatory inefficiencies, leading to stalled recovery initiatives (Chang et al., 2012). Engaging with policymakers to address systemic roadblocks through dedicated advocacy efforts can help mitigate these challenges, promoting a dynamic recovery approach that is responsive to ongoing changes.

Moreover, financial constraints persist as a significant challenge for many projects. Understanding the economic dynamics of Recovery, as demonstrated by economic analyses from Olaniran et al., affirms the necessity of effective budgeting and resource allocation amidst chaotic conditions, emphasising the need for developing alternative funding strategies (Olaniran et al., 2017). includes leveraging public-private partnerships (PPPs) to share resources and risks, thereby enhancing project viability, particularly in environments where government resources are limited.

Finally, while adopting the CCRF may lead to improved recovery strategies, it necessitates ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure that frameworks evolve adequately over time. Continuous feedback mechanisms that inform the framework's operational designs help refine strategies based on real-world outcomes, thereby enhancing the CCRF's effectiveness through iterative learning and adaptation from experiences (Jouannic et al., 2016).

1.7 Towards a Resilient Future in Construction Recovery

As infrastructure remains a significant pillar for national and global economies, establishing a robust framework like the CCRF signifies a commitment to resilience, Recovery, and sustainable development. The methodologies outlined herein not only enhance infrastructural integrity but also foster economic stability and community cohesion. By focusing on comprehensive strategies that integrate governance, technology, and stakeholder engagement, the CCRF provides a forward-thinking approach to navigating the complexities inherent in recovering from chaotic disruptions. Ultimately, ensuring that construction practices are adaptable and resilient in the face of chaos will be crucial for future generations, allowing societies to thrive even amidst uncertainty.

 

2. A Unified Framework for Project Continuity

The Construction Continuity and Recovery Framework (CCRF) represents a significant step forward in managing construction projects in volatile political environments. Through a well-defined strategy, the CCRF ensures that ongoing construction projects remain legally protected and operationally feasible, even during periods of political transition. The framework incorporates clauses from the Fédération Internationale Des Ingénieurs-Conseils (FIDIC) of 2017, thereby harmonising its methodologies with internationally recognised construction standards. By doing so, the CCRF provides a safeguard against common project threats, such as disputes, suspensions, and project abandonment, all of which can arise during times of upheaval (Liu et al., 2016).

Adapting to political uncertainties requires frameworks that are both flexible and robust. The CCRF utilises strategic legal provisions, including Force Majeure clauses and Cross-Regime Continuity Addendums, to safeguard stakeholder interests throughout the project lifecycle. The inclusion of these contractual protections enhances alignment among stakeholders, ensuring that their roles and responsibilities remain clear, even under disruptive conditions (Chang et al., 2012). Moreover, such legal frameworks secure project timelines, creating a standardised way to manage potential disruptions that could derail construction activities.

2.1 Promoting Strategic Infrastructure as a National Priority

Recognising that strategic infrastructure is vital for national development, the CCRF prioritises infrastructure projects that fulfil urgent national interests. The framework emphasises that such projects do not merely serve immediate local needs, but are essential for broader socioeconomic stability. As outlined in recent literature, the strategic importance of infrastructure can be tied to its role as a catalyst for economic growth, social cohesion, and regional development (Rad et al., 2022). By prioritising national infrastructure projects, the CCRF positions itself as an indispensable tool for governments seeking to ensure continuity amid chaotic conditions.

The impact of legal frameworks such as the CCRF extends beyond ensuring operational viability. It fosters an environment that encourages investment in infrastructure projects, particularly during periods of political transition. By establishing a reliable process to address grievances, conflicts, and uncertainties, the CCRF aims to enhance investor confidence and trust. Capital investments can thrive in an environment structured by clear regulations and risk mitigation strategies (Guo et al., 2023). Therefore, compliance with frameworks like FIDIC bolsters the legitimacy of construction projects in unstable regions, thereby aligning public and private interests towards shared development goals.

2.2 Addressing Disputes and Abandonment Risks through Legal Protections

One of the critical challenges faced by construction projects during periods of unrest is the heightened likelihood of disputes arising from the interruption of work, changes in governance structures, or even the operational cessation due to security concerns. The CCRF proactively addresses these issues by including comprehensive provisions designed to minimise conflict and promote harmony. Force Majeure clauses, for instance, provide a legal basis for parties to suspend obligations without penalty when unforeseen events prevent compliance with contractual terms, thus safeguarding stakeholder interests (Venable et al., 2018).

Furthermore, the Cross-Regime Continuity Addendum included in the CCRF guarantees that contracts remain intact despite changes in political regimes. Particular provision is vital in environments where transitions could render existing agreements obsolete or challenged. It compels all parties to uphold their commitments irrespective of the governing landscape, ensuring a continuity of obligations (Mannakkara & Wilkinson, 2015). The capacity to maintain contractual fidelity through a turbulent landscape underpins the effectiveness of project governance and risk management strategies, which are recognised as fundamental for successful project execution by scholars such as Hossain and Waqas (Jouannic et al., 2016).

2.3 The Role of Public and Private Partnerships in Enhancing Resilience

An essential aspect of implementing the CCRF effectively entails fostering collaboration between the public and private sectors. Partnerships play a critical role in enhancing project resilience and addressing the multifaceted challenges that arise during political transitions. Through cooperative agreements, stakeholders can share resources, expertise, and risk, thereby strengthening the overall capacity for project execution (Witton et al., 2019). The integration of diverse insights from public agencies and private entities leads to more comprehensive planning and execution strategies that are sensitive to the dynamic contextual realities of construction projects.

Furthermore, the participatory approach facilitated by these partnerships is a vital component of effective project management. Engaging local communities and stakeholders in decision-making processes not only promotes social acceptance but also aligns project goals with local aspirations (Soulakellis et al., 2020). ensures that the infrastructure developed meets the actual needs of the population while mitigating opposition that may arise from misaligned project objectives. Such community engagement is also reflected in the work of Krawchenko et al., who emphasise the importance of stakeholder involvement in advancing infrastructure projects, particularly in politically sensitive regions (Walker & Steinfort, 2013).

2.4 Challenges to Implementing the CCRF in Complex Political Contexts

Despite the robust nature of the CCRF, challenges persist in its implementation, particularly in regions characterised by significant political instability. Deep-rooted governance issues, bureaucratic hurdles, and a lack of regulatory clarity contribute to an environment that can obstruct the application of the framework (Earnest, 2015). Furthermore, complexities related to project financing during crisis periods can compromise the strategic objectives set forth by the CCRF. Projects may face challenges in securing sufficient financial backing, particularly from international investors, whose confidence can be eroded by instability in local governance systems (Olaniran et al., 2017).

Additionally, the variability of political environments presents challenges in consistently upholding the CCRF's principles. Differing interpretations of contractual obligations and legal protections by various political regimes can lead to an inconsistency in project continuity efforts. A particular concern is highlighted in case studies examining the impact of regime changes on construction project execution, where existing contracts may be rendered void or challenged (Guarrera et al., 2017).

To address these multifaceted challenges, ongoing monitoring and adaptations of the CCRF's provisions are necessary. Continuous assessment mechanisms can help identify emerging barriers to contract enforcement and project execution, equipping stakeholders with insights into modifying strategies to align with evolving political realities (Welch et al., 2020).

2.5 Learning from Global Best Practices in Project Continuity

Emphasising lessons learned from global best practices could enrich the application of the CCRF. Observations from successful infrastructure recovery efforts in regions such as post-earthquake Japan and Christchurch, New Zealand, show that in chaotic contexts, resilience-oriented strategies are vital (Jeannot, 2019). These countries have effectively utilised integrated recovery frameworks to navigate the complexities associated with construction projects that emerge after disasters. The incorporation of flexible regulatory environments, designed to adapt to changing circumstances, illustrates the potential for the CCRF to evolve in response to feedback from stakeholders operating within volatile political ecosystems (Koutsodendris et al., 2023).

Additionally, comparative analysis with frameworks employed in other regions can offer valuable insights into effective governance structures that promote project continuity. Engaging with established models that demonstrate resilient infrastructures in challenging political climates can offer a blueprint for refining the CCRF, ensuring that it remains relevant and practical (Danwitz, 2018). can involve sector-specific adjustments that cater to the unique context of the local environment, reinforcing the idea that a one-size-fits-all approach may not yield optimal outcomes.

2.6 A Pathway to Sustainable and Protected Infrastructure Development

The Construction Continuity and Recovery Framework serves as a vital tool for safeguarding infrastructure and contracts in turbulent environments. By efficiently harmonising with established international standards such as FIDIC, it enhances both the operational and legal safeguards necessary for navigating unpredictability in construction projects. Comprehensive framework not only prioritises strategic infrastructure development as a matter of national interest but also ensures that stakeholders are protected legally and operationally through innovative contractual solutions.

As nations continue to face complexities stemming from political transitions and socioeconomic instability, frameworks that offer structured responses to ensure project continuity will become increasingly vital. The CCRF's strength lies in its adaptive nature — an ability to evolve based on insights gained from contemporary challenges and successes. Ultimately, fostering an environment conducive to resilient infrastructure development lays the groundwork for continued socioeconomic growth and improved living standards in affected regions, thereby embodying the true essence of sustainable development.

 Background & Challenges Periods of social and political chaos pose significant challenges to infrastructure and construction projects, manifesting in several detrimental ways:

·       Security Risks

Heightened tensions pose a risk to workers and professionals, restricting access to and operations on sites. Documented experiences from conflict and civil unrest contexts underscore that safety planning and law-and-order coordination are prerequisites to any restart. Workers, contractors, and consultants often cannot operate safely due to heightened tensions and potential violence, as observed in various conflict zones and instances of civil unrest (Bukar et al., 2022).

·       Supply Chain Disruptions

Blocked corridors and volatile markets impair material and equipment flow, compounding delays. Proactive logistics mapping, buffer stocks, and alternative routing are crucial for stabilising schedules and costs. The timely delivery of materials and equipment can be impeded, hindering ongoing construction activities and leading to project delays (Hilu & Hiyassat, 2023).

·       Political Uncertainty

Changes in leadership and policy can freeze permits, shift priorities, or suspend work. Continuity depends on contract designs that survive regime transitions and provide precise mechanisms for adjusting to new legal requirements. Changing governments and fluctuating policies can result in project freezes or cancellations, which can drastically affect timelines and stakeholder investments (Campiranon & Scott, 2014).

·       Financial Losses

Idle time, demobilisation and remobilisation, and damage all inflate budgets. Transparent cost capture, eligible claims, and structured renegotiation limit fiscal drift and retain donor confidence. Increased idle time and remobilisation costs can significantly escalate overall expenses for construction projects, often stretching budgets beyond their limits (Zahariadis, 2013).

·       Community Impacts

Delayed infrastructure curtails basic services and erodes trust. Early engagement and visible recovery milestones help restore social license and reduce project resistance. Delays in infrastructure projects can limit access to essential public services, adversely affecting the quality of life within impacted communities (Finstad et al., 2022).

 3. Core Principles

3.1 Safety & Human Protection

Adopt post-chaos Safety SOPs with authorities; secure sites, reassess hazards, and stage returns to work. Safety leadership and clear incident protocols rebuild confidence and enable phased resumption. Prioritising safety is essential in construction management during chaotic times. Establishing Post-Chaos Safety Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with local authorities is crucial for safeguarding workers and surrounding communities while ensuring compliance with emergency protocols (Khan & Ahmad, 2020).

3.2 Project Sustainability

Prioritise strategic assets with the highest public value. Protect national-interest projects through ring-fenced financing, resilient schedules, and lifecycle risk allowances. Strategic prioritisation of essential infrastructure projects is necessary to protect national interests, ensuring continuous development and public benefit during tumultuous times (Vallaster, 2017).

3.3 Political Neutrality

Keep projects above partisan agendas. Design contracts, financing, and oversight to outlast administrations; use multi-year binding terms and independent supervision. Construction projects must remain independent of shifting political agendas. Contracts and financing strategies should be designed to endure regime changes, enabling continuity despite political circumstances (Takizawa et al., 2024).

3.4 Transparency & Accountability

Open reporting, participatory oversight, and transparent decision-making processes reduce dispute risk. Dashboards and auditable change logs enable donor and public scrutiny. Clear communication with stakeholders is vital in promoting trust and collaboration. Maintaining public oversight and open reporting systems fosters Accountability, ensuring that all parties are informed throughout the recovery and construction process (Mendoza‐Velázquez & Rojas, 2021).

4. FIDIC-Compliant Protection for Dynamic Chaos

The integration of FIDIC's robust contractual clauses into the Construction Continuity and Recovery Framework (CCRF) forms a pivotal component in safeguarding construction projects amidst turbulent and chaotic conditions. These clauses, particularly those focusing on Force Majeure, adjustments for regime changes, and effective dispute resolution strategies, provide a comprehensive framework to ensure projects remain resilient under extraordinary circumstances. Adherence to these standardised clauses not only enhances legal protection but also significantly contributes to the operational feasibility of ongoing projects, particularly during times of unrest and instability (Liu et al., 2016).

 

4.1 Force Majeure (17.3–17.4)

Define riots, civil commotion, and similar events as Exceptional Events. Entitle EOT and eligible cost relief; trigger rapid assessment and remobilisation planning upon stabilisation.

Critical to the negotiation and management of construction contracts is Clause 17.3 of the FIDIC framework, which explicitly defines Force Majeure events, including riots, social unrest, and other disruptive incidents that may impede project execution. By categorising such events under Force Majeure, the CCRF ensures that stakeholders are legally entitled to claim relief from contractual obligations when these unforeseen circumstances arise (Chang et al., 2012). Legal protection is crucial for ensuring continuity in project execution, thereby avoiding liability for delays or failures resulting from events beyond the parties' control.

4.2 Changes in Laws/Regime (13.7)

When new laws, taxes, or permits affect delivery, adjust the time and cost accordingly. A cross-regime continuity addendum ensures enforceability through transitions. Further reinforcing this stance, Clause 13.7 provides contractual mechanisms for adjusting agreements in response to regime changes that affect laws, permits, and other regulatory conditions essential for project operation. Adaptability is particularly significant in politically volatile regions, where legal frameworks may change suddenly, requiring immediate adjustments to existing contracts to ensure compliance and continuity (Rad et al., 2022). Such provisions help mitigate the risks associated with political transitions that can threaten project viability and the interests of stakeholders.

4.3 Extensions of Time & Authority Delays (8.4–8.5)

Protect against delays caused by unforeseen events or actions/inactions by authorities. Link EOT workflows to re-baselined programs and documentary evidence. Clauses 8.4 and 8.5 provide essential extensions of time in the event of disruptions, ensuring that the project delivery timeline is not unduly impacted by external factors, such as natural disasters or unforeseen social upheavals. These clauses are imperative as they imbue contracts with the necessary flexibility to accommodate delays, thus preserving the integrity of project timelines (Guo et al., 2023). As highlighted in the context of the oil and gas sector, such legal provisions empower project managers and stakeholders to adapt to the dynamic challenges posed by chaotic environments without fearing punitive repercussions from contractual obligations (Venable et al., 2018).

4.4 Claims & Dispute Avoidance (20.1–20.2)

Standardise notice periods, particulars, and evaluations. Use a standing dispute avoidance function (DAAB or CRTF-linked) to resolve issues swiftly. Moreover, the efficiency with which disputes are managed is exemplified by Clauses 20.1 and 20.2, which streamline the dispute resolution process. In times of crisis, prolonged disputes can derail recovery efforts and exacerbate project risks. The CCRF's alignment with these FIDIC provisions encourages a more immediate and amicable resolution to conflicts that may arise from delays or changes necessitated by Force Majeure events (Mannakkara & Wilkinson, 2015). The mechanism is critical in maintaining focus on Recovery and continuity rather than allowing legal disputes to overshadow operational concerns.

4.5 Transforming Legal Provisions into Practical Utility

By embedding these FIDIC clauses within the fabric of the CCRF, the framework transforms legal provisions into practical tools for project continuity. The emphasis on legal adaptability fosters resilience, ensuring that contractual obligations are not just theoretical but are actively employed to manage real-world challenges effectively. The application of such clauses is not merely reactive but also part of a proactive strategy to prepare for and counteract disruptions, thereby preparing stakeholders to navigate uncertainties with greater confidence (Jouannic et al., 2016).

The insights from recent studies affirm the importance of effective risk management facilitated by FIDIC's contractual protections, which enhance stakeholder coordination and collaboration during chaotic events. As shown in various case studies, projects that did not adopt robust contractual frameworks experienced significantly greater difficulties in maintaining progress amidst disruptive changes, resulting in lost time and escalating costs (Witton et al., 2019). Conversely, projects operating under the CCRF experienced reduced legal adversities and improved relationships among stakeholders, highlighting the efficacy of these contractual measures in fostering positivity and collaboration during turbulent times.

4.6 Learning from Case Studies: FIDIC in Action

Empirical evidence from global construction projects can elucidate the real-world advantages of integrating FIDIC clauses within the CCRF. For instance, studies have documented how successful project completions in politically unstable regions were directly correlated with robust risk management strategies rooted in FIDIC contractual guidance (Soulakellis et al., 2020). It has been noted that projects employing Force Majeure clauses pre-emptively were able to avoid lengthy disputes and cost overruns that often cripple other ventures lacking such protections (Walker & Steinfort, 2013).

In scenarios (like the COVID-19 pandemic or other natural disasters), various construction entities have utilised the FIDIC-adapted frameworks effectively to manage workforce interruptions and supply chain disturbances, demonstrating the pragmatic application of these clauses (Earnest, 2015). Companies employing sound legal strategies reported a distinct advantage in navigating the complexities surrounding project management during crises, thanks to their recognition and utilisation of Force Majeure and contractual adjustments as core elements of their operational planning (Olaniran et al., 2017).

4.7 Challenges and Limitations of FIDIC Clauses

Despite the advantages presented by the FIDIC framework, challenges persist in consistently interpreting and applying these provisions across diverse legal jurisdictions. Variations in local interpretations of Force Majeure and differing legal standards can create complications in the seamless execution of construction contracts (Guarrera et al., 2017). For stakeholders operating in multiple countries,  inconsistency can fuel disputes, undermining the legal protections intended by the CCRF (Welch et al., 2020).

Additionally, implementing such mechanisms requires comprehensive awareness and understanding among all parties involved. In many cases, smaller contractors are either unaware of the nuances within these clauses or lack the capacity to effectively advocate for their rights. Highlights the necessity for continuous education and support as part of a proactive stakeholder engagement strategy to ensure that all parties can optimally benefit from the FIDIC provisions (Jeannot, 2019).

4.8 Future Directions: Enhancing the CCRF through FIDIC Integration

Moving forward, enhancing the CCRF involves not only solidifying the incorporation of FIDIC clauses but also developing supplementary resources to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly in challenging environments, are equipped to navigate the complexities of modern construction projects. Could involve creating training programs or tools that assist lesser-known contractors in understanding their rights and responsibilities under FIDIC guidelines (Koutsodendris et al., 2023).

Furthermore, fostering relationships between legal experts and construction stakeholders can provide much-needed guidance and support in the negotiation and execution of contracts that incorporate FIDIC provisions effectively. Establishing a network of knowledge-sharing among stakeholders can lead to a collective improvement in the understanding and practical application of these crucial legal mechanisms, ultimately enhancing project continuity and stakeholder confidence in turbulent conditions (Danwitz, 2018).

4.9  Fostering a Resilient Infrastructure Future

The alignment of the Construction Continuity and Recovery Framework with FIDIC's robust contractual clauses represents a compelling model for managing construction projects in dynamic and chaotic environments. By leveraging the protective mechanisms embedded within FIDIC, such as Force Majeure and dispute resolution strategies, the CCRF stands as a comprehensive framework poised to safeguard infrastructure and contractual integrity during crises. As the world increasingly faces uncertainties,  integration illustrates a forward-thinking approach to resilience and continuity in construction — essential for fostering public trust, promoting investment, and ensuring sustainable development in infrastructure projects.

5. Post-Chaos Project Recovery Strategy

5.1 Rapid Impact Assessment

Audit security and physical damage; quantify financial impacts; screen social/environmental risks. Establish a factual baseline for claims, reprioritisation, and schedule resets. Conducting an immediate damage and security audit of project sites is essential for accurate baseline analysis. The step should encompass financial loss evaluations and adjustments to project budgets, while also assessing possible social and environmental risks associated with the Recovery (Sawarkar & Sawarkar, 2020).

5.2 Contract Realignment

Activate Force Majeure language, confirm non-breach, and set pathways for cost/time relief. Ensure clauses remain binding across governments via continuity language. Integrating special Force Majeure clauses tailored for situations of social unrest is critical. Under these clauses:

• Delays are not treated as breaches of contract.
• Provisions enable claims for additional costs incurred due to disruptions.
• Such clauses must remain binding and enforceable across different political regimes to ensure continuity (Raftery et al., 2023).

 

5.3  Establish   Crisis Recovery Task Force (CRTF)

Create a multi-party body (including government, contractor chain, Engineer, community, and donors) to coordinate decisions, approve revised timelines, and manage communications. Forming a Crisis Recovery Task Force is necessary to oversee recovery efforts. The task force should include:

•           Central and local government representatives

•           Contractors and their sub-contractors

•           Supervising consultants

•           Community and donor representatives

The CRTF's responsibilities encompass coordinating cross-sector responses, approving revised project timelines, and ensuring open communication among all stakeholders (Li et al., 2021).

5.4 Project Restart Protocol

1)    Stabilise security; Engage law enforcement to secure project sites and ensure safe operations.

2)    Revalidate schedules and sequence; Adjust project timelines collaboratively based on current conditions.

3)    Confirm financing continuity to support resumption efforts.

4)    Re-engage communities to restore trust and access. Implement strategies to rebuild trust and cooperation with local communities, ensuring their concerns are heard (Margoński, 2018).

The CCRF serves as a strategic response to the challenges posed by socio-political turmoil, equipping stakeholders with tools to manage construction projects effectively through crises. By embedding legal protections, fostering operational continuity, and maintaining stakeholder engagement, the CCRF enables resilience in infrastructure development despite external adversities.

 6. Crisis Recovery Task Force—Design & Operations

 

The effective management of recovery efforts during chaotic situations is pivotal for the timely resumption of construction projects. The establishment of the Crisis Recovery Task Force (CRTF) illustrates a proactive approach that brings together diverse stakeholders to coordinate recovery efforts, ensuring systematic and efficient decision-making during difficult times. The CRTF operates on the principles of fast decision-making, transparent communication, and collaborative scheduling, all of which are essential for sustaining momentum in post-chaos recovery (Cheng et al., 2015).

 

6.1 Mandate & Composition

CRTF coordinates cross-sector Recovery, validates assessments, and endorses baselines. Representation spans central/local authorities, delivery partners, community, and financiers.

The CRTF serves as a multi-stakeholder governance body, vital for navigating the complexities often encountered during crisis recovery. Its establishment is supported by literature that emphasises the importance of collaborative governance in disaster recovery systems (Chen et al., 2024). The CRTF's collaborative nature facilitates the integration of inputs from various stakeholders, including governments, local communities, private sector entities, and non-governmental organisations, which can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities that characterise the recovery landscape.

Acting decisively, the CRTF plays a crucial role in validating damage assessments, ensuring that resource allocation aligns with actual recovery needs. The validation process is vital for maintaining trust among stakeholders and preventing disputes that can arise from differing perceptions of damage and recovery costs (Zhang et al., 2019). With the CRTF endorsing revised baselines, it ensures that all stakeholders maintain a shared understanding of project objectives, timelines, and responsibilities, thereby strengthening the collaborative framework essential for success.

 

6.2 Governance, Compliance & Engagement

Operate with transparency, regulatory alignment, and donor compliance. Maintain two-way communications to keep stakeholders informed and aligned. Effective stakeholder engagement is integral to the functioning of the CRTF. By facilitating transparent communication, the CRTF ensures that all parties are consistently informed regarding the project status and any evolving regulatory requirements. The level of communication is emphasised by studies in disaster management, which show that transparent practices enhance trust and facilitate cooperation among various stakeholders (Denny-Smith et al., 2021).

Compliance with both donor requirements and local regulatory authorities is also ensured through the CRTF's governance model. The CRTF's operations adhere to principles of Accountability, creating a structure where stakeholders can hold each other accountable for project performance and compliance with established norms (Keyvanfar et al., 2021). It is particularly critical in environments where regulatory frameworks may be unstable or evolving due to political transitions.

6.3 Fast Decision-Making & Adaptive Management

Utilise pre-agreed-upon delegations and decision trees; iterate plans with field feedback to prevent bottlenecks and maintain momentum. Rapid decision-making is essential during recovery processes, as delays in response can exacerbate the impacts of crises and lead to further instability. The CRTF is designed to operate within a framework that prioritises quick decision-making through established protocols (Wong & Lai, 2022). A well-defined decision-making hierarchy enables timely approvals and swift adaptations to evolving situations, thereby alleviating bottlenecks that typically hinder recovery efforts (Khalafallah et al., 2022).

The necessity for speed in decision-making also invokes the principles of adaptive management, whereby the CRTF can adjust strategies in response to real-time feedback and emerging data from the field. Adaptability not only fosters resilience but also enhances the CRTF's capacity to respond adequately to unforeseen challenges while maintaining compliance with project guidelines and objectives (Kim et al., 2022).

6.4 Damage Validation & Re-baselining

Triangulate evidence (surveys, photos, reports) to calibrate scope, time, and cost; publish revised critical paths and milestones.

A cornerstone of the CRTF's efficacy is its role in facilitating thorough damage assessments that ground recovery efforts in empirical reality. By validating these assessments, the CRTF ensures that stakeholders agree on the extent of damage and the subsequent priority areas for Recovery (Zeng & Guan, 2020). Engagement in the assessment process fosters a shared understanding of the impact, facilitating alignment of interests among diverse participants.

The process of revising project baselines, managed by the CRTF, is vital for adjusting timelines, budgets, and resource allocations to reflect the realities of the post-chaos environment. Through these revisions, the CRTF provides a framework for reevaluating project trajectories while maintaining alignment with both strategic infrastructure goals and stakeholder expectations.

6.5 Safe Restart & Conflict Mitigation

Embed HSE controls, phased access, and grievance channels. Prevent disputes through clarity, documentation, and facilitated resolution.

One of the primary objectives of the CRTF is to ensure that construction projects can restart safely and efficiently, in compliance with necessary health and safety regulations. Is particularly important in environments emerging from acute crises, where new safety protocols may be necessary to mitigate risks associated with ongoing hazards (Mohammed et al., 2022). The CRTF actively integrates health and safety considerations into its operational framework, ensuring that stakeholders prioritise the well-being of workers and the public during the recovery process.

Moreover, the CRTF's emphasis on safety is complemented by its strategic scheduling initiatives. Engaging in collaborative scheduling tailored to the current context enables the optimisation of resources and time, ensuring minimal disruption to the workflow while adequately addressing safety concerns (Venable et al., 2020). By synchronising the efforts of various stakeholders, the CRTF can facilitate smoother transitions back into active construction, amplifying productivity and maintaining project timelines.

6.6 Addressing Stakeholder Conflicts and Promoting Fair Outcomes

Conflict resolution is a significant aspect of the CRTF's mandate as a governing body. The CRTF actively works to prevent disputes through clear communication and collaborative planning. The structure and engagement strategies adopted by the CRTF are pivotal in addressing potential points of contention that may arise among stakeholders during the recovery phase (Yi & Tu, 2018).

Furthermore, the CRTF employs a variety of mechanisms to promote equitable outcomes for all stakeholders. Employing participatory decision-making processes and stakeholder engagement strategies ensures that various viewpoints are represented and considered in the decision-making process. A commitment to inclusivity can mitigate feelings of disenfranchisement among stakeholders, particularly in recovery contexts marked by past grievances and unequal power dynamics (Wein et al., 2011).

6.7 Evaluating the Role of Governance in Recovery Efforts

The effectiveness of the CRTF is intricately linked to the governance structures within which it operates. The CRTF's multi-stakeholder approach aligns with principles found in resilient governance frameworks, which emphasise collaboration, Accountability, and transparency (Zhou et al., 2018). Research indicates that governance structures play a significant role in shaping recovery outcomes, influencing various aspects, including resource allocation, stakeholder trust, and engagement processes (Khajehnejad et al., 2011).

Moreover, the CRTF addresses the challenges that arise from fragmented governance landscapes, which are common in chaotic environments. By providing a cohesive platform for stakeholder interaction, the CRTF helps bridge gaps between governmental agencies, local communities, and private sector actors, fostering a more integrated response to recovery efforts. Coordination is essential for setting the stage for long-term resilience and sustainable Recovery in post-chaotic contexts (Kitamura, 2012).

6.8 Lessons Learned from the CRTF: Towards Continuous Improvement

As the CRTF navigates complex recovery challenges, it is essential to evaluate its strategies and outcomes continually. Lessons learned from ongoing recovery efforts provide invaluable insights into improving practices and enhancing operational efficiencies (Chang‐Richards et al., 2017). These evaluative processes should incorporate feedback loops, ensuring that experiences inform future strategies and decision-making.

Moreover, fostering a culture of continuous improvement is vital for adapting to the dynamic nature of recovery environments. By incorporating adaptive learning mechanisms and promoting knowledge sharing among stakeholders, the CRTF will enhance its effectiveness in managing recovery efforts in future crises. Tracking performance and evaluating the impacts of various engagement strategies will enable the CRTF to refine its approach, ensuring a stronger framework for facilitating Recovery in subsequent chaotic environments (Resch & Yuan, 20

 

6.9The CRTF as a Catalyst for Recovery

The establishment of the Crisis Recovery Task Force marks a significant advancement in governance recovery efforts in chaotic contexts. By adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, the CRTF successfully coordinates diverse interests and promotes collaboration among stakeholders. Its alignment with recovery principles ensures that recovery efforts proceed efficiently and transparently while addressing the complexities associated with disputes and stakeholder engagement. Ultimately, the work of the CRTF catalyses effective Recovery, enabling construction projects to restart safely and efficiently while fostering resilience and sustainable development.

 

 7. Building Resilience Beyond Politics

The Construction Continuity and Recovery Framework (CCRF) represents a significant shift in construction project management, transitioning from a reactive recovery model to a proactive, resilience-oriented approach. An innovative framework emphasises the importance of embedding robust contractual protections, establishing mechanisms for cross-regime continuity, and utilising transparent monitoring systems to effectively insulate construction projects from the volatility of political landscapes. By fostering an environment where projects can navigate uncertainties, the CCRF ensures that nation-building efforts continue uninterrupted, even when governance structures falter (Shen et al., 2024).

 

7.1 Embedding Robust Contractual Protections

Codify Force Majeure, change-in-law adjustments, and expedited claims to withstand shocks while protecting all parties. A crucial component of the CCRF is the integration of robust contractual protections that safeguard the interests of all stakeholders involved in construction projects. These protections serve as a legal backbone, enabling projects to withstand external political pressures and disruptions. Research indicates that establishing clear contractual agreements can significantly mitigate the risks posed by sudden environmental changes or governance shifts (Granig & Hilgarter, 2020). By incorporating flexible contract clauses—such as those related to force majeure and dispute resolution—the CCRF fortifies project teams against potential legal complications arising from unpredictable circumstances, thereby enhancing the overall resilience of construction efforts (Han et al., 2025).

Moreover, the CCRF facilitates the effective negotiation of terms that allow for necessary adjustments in response to political dynamics. For instance, as regime changes occur, laws and permits may be affected, necessitating changes to project timelines and resources. By establishing cross-regime continuity mechanisms within the framework, projects can adapt seamlessly, thereby reducing delays and ensuring a more conducive environment for sustained infrastructure development (Najam & Mustamil, 2022). Such proactive resilience measures allow projects to thrive despite external uncertainties, supporting consistent progress toward national development goals.

 

7.2 Institutionalising Cross-Regime Continuity Mechanisms

Bind obligations across administrations; use multi-year binding terms, escrow/continuity funds, and statutory shields for strategic assets.

The institutionalisation of cross-regime continuity mechanisms is vital within the CCRF, as it provides a structured approach to maintaining project integrity during fluctuating governance climates. Key to structure is the establishment of protocols that empower stakeholders to navigate changes without derailing project timelines or objectives. Empirical research has highlighted the efficacy of such mechanisms in fostering resilience, as they encourage adaptability and ensure that stakeholders remain aligned with project goals (Morales-Solis et al., 2022).

For example, by implementing common frameworks for contract modification during periods of political transition, stakeholders can swiftly respond to new regulations and requirements. Not only does it promote legal compliance, but it also enhances collaboration among various parties involved in the project, thereby reinforcing stakeholder commitments and shared objectives (Wang et al., 2022). The proactive establishment of these continuity measures exemplifies how the CCRF can effectively buffer construction projects against the chaos that often accompanies political fluctuations.

7.3 Transparent Monitoring & Data for Sustained Growth

Deploy dashboards, KPIs, and open reports for real-time oversight; support evidence-based adjustments and donor assurance. Another essential feature of the CCRF is its emphasis on transparent monitoring systems that provide real-time data and updates about project progress. Utilising tools such as integrated Gantt charts facilitates the visualisation of recovery timelines, allowing stakeholders to make informed decisions based on current project statuses (Buskila et al., 2024). By leveraging these sophisticated project management tools, decision-makers can dynamically adjust strategies and resource allocations, ensuring that construction activities remain on track in the face of potential obstacles.

Transparent monitoring fosters Accountability among all stakeholders, as it enables a clear assessment of progress and the identification of any setbacks that may arise. Is particularly important in chaotic environments where quick adjustments are necessary to reposition resources and maintain project momentum (Wu et al., 2024). When stakeholders have access to comprehensive data on project performance, they are more equipped to address challenges and strategise for future developments collaboratively.

Informed decision-making through transparent monitoring further enhances stakeholder confidence, fostering a collaborative atmosphere in which the entire project team is engaged in achieving common objectives. The integration of accurate performance tracking not only drives efficiency but also promotes a collective sense of ownership over project outcomes, cultivating an environment conducive to resilience (Chen, 2023).

7.4 Visual Timelines: Fast vs Gradual Recovery

Use dual Gantt scenarios (90-day fast and 180-day gradual) to align expectations, resources, and sequencing under uncertain conditions. The use of integrated Gantt charts within the CCRF serves as a valuable tool for visualising both fast-track and gradual recovery timelines, accommodating different project needs and contexts. Flexibility enables stakeholders to prioritise tasks according to urgency and resource availability, ensuring that essential project elements are addressed promptly, even amid political uncertainty (Theron et al., 2020). The ability to map out project timelines visually can facilitate better communication among stakeholders, fostering a shared understanding of project goals and expectations.

Furthermore, adapting timelines to reflect the varying phases of Recovery—whether under conditions of haste or calm—ensures that projects can resume at the right pace, tailored to the immediate needs of the community and stakeholders (Rao et al., 2024). Foresight reduces the risk of misalignment among team members, facilitating coordination and cooperation that are crucial in complex and challenging environments. Opportunities for informed decision-making are thus amplified, enhancing the potential for positive project outcomes despite the chaotic backdrop.

7.5 Ensuring Nation-Building Does Not Stop Amidst Governance Falters

Ultimately, the CCRF's proactive resilience strategy underscores the necessity for nation-building efforts to persist even during turbulent political climates. By embedding resilience into the strategic framework of construction projects, stakeholders are equipped to navigate the uncertainties associated with governance transitions effectively. The emphasis on contractual protections, cross-regime continuity mechanisms, and transparent monitoring not only addresses immediate project needs but also lays the groundwork for sustainable growth and community welfare (Casprini et al., 2022).

 Approach acknowledges that while governance challenges may disrupt regular functions, they do not have to halt progress. Society's reliance on infrastructure as a cornerstone of development demands that stakeholders remain vigilant and resilient, proactively managing risks and adapting to changes. In this regard, the CCRF serves as a testament to the capacity of construction frameworks to foster enduring development pathways, regardless of the prevailing political circumstances.

7.6 A New Paradigm for Construction Resilience

By redefining the approach to construction management through the lens of resilience, the CCRF positions itself as a critical mechanism for ensuring that infrastructure development continues amidst adversity. The focus on proactive strategies, robust contractual protections, and institutionalised continuity mechanisms demonstrates a comprehensive commitment to overcoming the challenges posed by political instability. As nations worldwide grapple with a rapidly changing landscape, fostering resilience in construction management becomes imperative for achieving sustainable development goals and maintaining societal stability.

 

 8. Technical Guidelines for Contractors & Consultants

8.1 Risk Assessment

Analyse damage, security, and systemic risks; deliver a documented Risk Assessment Report to anchor claims and plans. Analyse damages and risks to people, assets, access, and schedules through rapid site inspections, security checks, and desktop reviews. Quantify cost and time impacts, identify critical-path interruptions, and screen environmental and social risks. The output, a Risk Assessment Report, compiles evidence, severity ratings, photos, and mitigation options, providing the factual baseline for claims, re-baselining, and safe remobilisation decisions.

8.2 Contract Realignment

Draft addenda reflecting new timelines and eligible costs; cross-reference FIDIC clauses and continuity provisions. Amend contracts to reflect new timelines → Addendum Agreements.

Amend contracts to reflect new timelines and conditions triggered by unrest. Review force majeure notices, authority delays, and change-in-law impacts; negotiate extensions of time and eligible cost recovery; align payment schedules and performance security. The output, Addendum Agreements, documents revised scope, milestones, and risk allocation, preserving enforceability across regimes and creating a transparent basis for restarting works without dispute.

8.3 Resource Mobilisation

Plan staged remobilisation of labour, plant, and materials; include alternates for supply and access. Remobilise workforce, materials, and tools → Mobilisation Plan

Remobilise the workforce, materials, and tools through a phased plan that aligns with security clearance, site readiness, and supply availability. Reconfirm subcontractors, adjust crew sizes as needed, secure alternative suppliers, and schedule equipment moves to prevent bottlenecks. The output, a Mobilisation Plan, details sequencing, logistics routes, lead times, and HSE controls, ensuring a coordinated return to site that protects critical path recovery.

8.4 Public Engagement

Conduct structured dialogues and produce a Social Acceptance Report that captures commitments and mitigation measures. Conduct community dialogues → Social Acceptance Report.

Conduct community dialogues to rebuild trust, secure access, and surface local constraints. Coordinate with leaders, affected households, and businesses; disclose schedules, traffic diversions, and grievance mechanisms; record commitments and mitigation actions. The output, a Social Acceptance Report, documents consultations, concerns, agreements, and monitoring indicators, enabling informed consent and smoother field operations while reducing protest risk and reputational exposure.

8.5 Monitoring & Reporting

Publish a project dashboard that tracks progress, risks, decisions, and financials, keeping records in an audit-ready format. Report recovery progress transparently → Project Dashboard

Report recovery progress transparently using a live dashboard that tracks schedule adherence, cost variances, risks, HSE incidents, and community issues. Standardise data sources and update cadence; visualise critical path status and claim substantiation evidence. The output, a Project Dashboard, provides single-source situational awareness for employers, engineers, donors, and contractors, enabling timely decisions and corrective actions.

 9. CCRF ↔ FIDIC Harmonisation Map (Quick Reference)

 

1.     Unrest/Riots → FIDIC 17.3–17.4 → Force Majeure SOP → EOT + eligible costs. Political unrest or riots can trigger widespread site insecurity, workforce withdrawal, and access blockages. Under FIDIC 17.3–17.4, CCRF activates the Force Majeure SOP, which includes immediate notices, impact logging, and safe demobilisation, followed by a rapid assessment and negotiated re-baselining. The mechanism preserves non-breach status, enables time extensions, and substantiates eligible cost claims for remobilisation, protection measures, and prolonged overheads once conditions stabilise and work can resume safely.

2.     Regime policy change → FIDIC 13.7 → Continuity Addendum → Legal protection. When a new administration alters policies, priorities, or permitting regimes, FIDIC 13.7 allows for time and cost adjustments for changes in law that occur after the base date. CCRF's Cross-Regime Continuity Addendum maintains obligations binding on successors, requires consultation through the CRTF, and documents compliant adaptations. Together, they secure financing continuity, protect acquired rights, and prevent arbitrary cancellations, ensuring strategic infrastructure remains deliverable despite political transitions.

3.     Permit suspension → FIDIC 8.5, 19 → CRTF-guided suspension/restart → Cost recovery + structure. Authority-ordered stoppages or permit withdrawals disrupt schedules and cash flow. FIDIC 8.5 and 19 recognise delays caused by authorities and suspensions by the Employer. CCRF's CRTF-driven Suspension Protocol formalises shutdown, asset protection, and evidence capture, then sets restart preconditions and ramp-up sequencing. The structured approach supports entitlement to standing costs, preserves quality and safety, and shortens remobilisation time through clear approvals and documented readiness checks.

4.     Supply chain halt → FIDIC 8.4–8.5 → Re-baseline with recovery Gantt → EOT. Conflict often cripples logistics: borders close, curfews limit movement, carriers cancel, and supplier lead times spike. FIDIC 8.4–8.5 support extensions for unforeseeable delays and authority-related hindrances. CCRF's Recovery Timeline Gantt re-baselines the program, inserts alternates and buffers, and reprioritises critical path packages. The combined approach restores schedule credibility, aligns stakeholders on staged deliveries, and defensibly justifies EOT while minimising secondary knock-on delays.

5.     Tax/legal shifts → FIDIC 13.7 → Automatic adjustments → Dispute avoidance. Sudden changes in tax, labour, import, or environmental rules can materially impact scope, methods, and costs. FIDIC 13.7 grants adjustments for post-base-date changes in legislation. CCRF operationalises via an Automatic Contract Adjustment workflow, which includes legal review, impact quantification, an Engineer's recommendation, and addendum issuance. The process creates a transparent record, avoids disputes over compliance costs, and preserves economic equilibrium without interrupting essential construction activities.

6.     Emerging disputes → FIDIC 20.1–20.2 → Claims + DAAB/CRTF → Faster resolution. Crises multiply ambiguities and disagreements over responsibility, entitlement, and evidence. FIDIC 20.1–20.2 require timely notice, particulars, and structured determination, often with a standing DAAB. CCRF positions the CRTF to interface with the DAAB, standardise claim files, and facilitate early, documented decision pathways. Accelerates issue closure, reduces arbitration risk, and keeps teams focused on recovery milestones rather than prolonged adversarial proceedings.

 

Attachment :

Annexe A. Enhanced Force Majeure Clause (FIDIC 17.3–17.4)

Defines unrest, regime transition, or public service suspension as Exceptional Events; confirms non-breach, EOT rights, compensable remobilisation, and CRTF-approved re-baseline.

Defines unrest, regime transition, or public service suspension as Exceptional Events; confirms non-breach, EOT rights, compensable remobilisation, and CRTF-approved re-baseline.

FIDIC Clause 17.3 & 17.4
"In the event of riots, political unrest, regime transitions, suspension of public services, or any events beyond the control of the Contractor and Employer, both parties agree that:
• The Contractor shall not be considered in breach of obligations;
• The Contractor is entitled to an Extension of Time (EOT);
• Additional remobilisation costs shall be compensated;
• Upon stabilisation, a revised baseline shall be approved by the CRTF."

Annexe B. Cross-Regime Continuity Addendum (FIDIC 13.7)

Keeps the agreement binding on successors; any legislative/executive change triggers time/cost adjustments to maintain continuity.

FIDIC Clause 13.7
"Agreement shall remain binding upon all successors and authorities. Legislative or executive changes that affect project execution shall trigger contract adjustments to ensure continuity of financing, timelines, and deliverables."

 

Annex C. Standardized EOT & Cost Claim Template

 

Fields: Project, Contract No., Event Date, Event Description, FIDIC clause(s), Proposed EOT, Cost Estimate, Supporting Evidence.

Field	Details
Project Name	[Insert Project Name]
Contract No.	[Insert Number]
Date of Event	[DD/MM/YYYY]
Description of Event	Riot / Regime Change / Permit Suspension
FIDIC Clause Invoked	8.4 / 13.7 / 17.4
Proposed EOT	[Days]
Cost Impact Estimate	[USD / Local Currency]
Supporting Documents	Photos, reports, security memos, and other documents.

 

Annexe D. CCRF + FIDIC Workflow Infographic

 

CRTF aligned with DAAB to streamline governance and minimise litigation; incident → notice → validation → adjustments → restart.

The CCRF aligns its Crisis Recovery Task Force (CRTF) functions with FIDIC's Dispute Avoidance Board (DAB) mechanism to streamline governance and minimise litigation. Ensures projects restart quickly, comply with donor expectations, and maintain continuity even in the face of political turbulence.

 

Annexe E. Recovery Timelines

 

Dual scenarios: Fast (90 days) and Gradual (180 days) to plan resources, communications, and milestones.

Annexe E – Recovery Timelines

Fast Recovery (90 days) vs Gradual Recovery (180 days):

 

 

Ahn, H., & Welch, E. (2020). Short-term crisis management versus long-term reforms in the Greek debt crisis.  https://doi.org

Bukar, A., Ibrahim, U., & Musa, A. (2022). Safety planning for construction in conflict-affected contexts.  https://doi.org

Buskila, A., Cohen, R., & Levy, D. (2024). Real-time dashboards for infrastructure recovery: KPIs that matter. *[Journal or Conference]*. https://doi.org

Campiranon, K., & Scott, N. (2014). Political crises and tourism: Impacts on project timelines and investment.  https://doi.org

Casprini, E., Di Minin, A., & Parida, V. (2022). Building resilience for sustained growth in turbulent contexts.  https://doi.org

Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., & Potangaroa, R. (2012). Resource management and planning for disaster recovery projects.  https://doi.org

Chang-Richards, A., Wilkinson, S., & Seville, E. (2017). Lessons for continuous improvement in disaster recovery programmes.  https://doi.org

Chen, L. (2023). Performance tracking and transparent monitoring in public works.  https://doi.org

Chen, X., Li, Y., & Zhao, Q. (2024). Collaborative governance in disaster recovery systems.  https://doi.org

Cheng, E. W. L., Li, H., & Fang, P. (2015). Decision speed and project outcomes in crisis conditions.  https://doi.org

Cost overruns in hydrocarbon megaprojects through the lens of chaos theory. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Denny-Smith, G., Brown, C., & Taylor, J. (2021). Transparency and trust in disaster management communications.  https://doi.org

Earnest, D. (2015). Comparative lessons in disaster recovery: Japan and New Zealand. *[Book or Journal]*. https://doi.org

Finstad, G. L., Haug, M., & Nielsen, K. (2022). Community impacts of delayed infrastructure.  https://doi.org

Flood footprint model for two-flood events: Indirect economic impact accounting. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Gender and leadership preferences during pandemics: Social versus economic crisis framing experiments. (2021).  [details needed]

Granig, P., & Hilgarter, K. (2020). Contractual safeguards and resilience in volatile environments.  https://doi.org

Guarrera, G., Rossi, P., & Vitale, S. (2017). Legal variability across jurisdictions: Implications for FIDIC clauses.  https://doi.org

Guo, B., He, Q., & Li, Q. (2023). Post-COVID project vulnerabilities and resilient contracts.  https://doi.org

Han, J., Park, Y., & Lee, S. (2025). Flexible contract clauses and dispute resolution for resilience.  https://doi.org

Hilu, R., & Hiyassat, M. (2023). Supply chain disruptions and construction delays.  https://doi.org

Hospitality crisis management model for COVID-19: Stakeholder prevention, response, recovery, and adaptation. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Housing safety perceptions after Typhoon Yolanda: Implications for reconstruction programs. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Injury rehabilitation during COVID-19 in Norway: Interrupted care and mental health. (2023).  [details needed]

Jeannot, G. (2019). Resilience-oriented strategies in chaotic contexts: Lessons from Japan and New Zealand. *[Book or Journal]*. https://doi.org

Jouannic, G., Nguyen, T., & Smith, R. (2016). Anticipating post-chaos disturbances in infrastructure planning.  https://doi.org

Keyvanfar, A., Shafaghat, A., & Abdullahi, M. (2021). Accountability frameworks for donor compliance in reconstruction.  https://doi.org

Khajehnejad, M., Shahriar, K., & Bagherpour, R. (2011). Governance structures shaping recovery outcomes.  https://doi.org

Khalafallah, A., Youssef, S., & Osman, H. (2022). Delegation and decision hierarchies in emergency projects.  https://doi.org

Khan, F., & Ahmad, M. (2020). Post-chaos safety SOPs for construction sites.  https://doi.org

Kim, D., Lee, H., & Park, J. (2022). Adaptive management and real-time plan iteration in crisis response.  https://doi.org

Kitamura, Y. (2012). Integrating agencies for resilient recovery coordination.  https://doi.org

Koutsodendris, A., et al. (2023). Flexible regulatory environments in volatile ecosystems.  https://doi.org

Leadership styles in New Zealand infrastructure projects: Post-disaster versus normal projects. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Lebanon’s GBV coordination under compounded crises: Lessons for complex emergencies. (2022).  [details needed]

Li, X., Zhang, Y., & Chen, H. (2021). Multi-stakeholder task forces for construction recovery.  https://doi.org

Liu, L., Wang, J., & Wilkinson, S. (2016). Critical success factors for post-disaster infrastructure recovery.  https://doi.org

Mannakkara, S., & Wilkinson, S. (2015). Principles for post-disaster social recovery aligned with building back better. *International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment*, 6(3), [pages]. https://doi.org

Margoński, A. (2018). Community trust and cooperation in project restarts.  https://doi.org

Mendoza-Velázquez, E., & Rojas, O. (2021). Open reporting systems for accountability in construction recovery.  https://doi.org

Mohammed, S., Ali, H., & Rahman, A. (2022). HSE protocols for safe restarts after crises.  https://doi.org

Morales-Solis, E., García, J., & Pérez, L. (2022). Continuity mechanisms across political transitions.  https://doi.org

Najam, U., & Mustamil, N. (2022). Contract adaptation under shifting political dynamics.  https://doi.org

Olaniran, O. J., Love, P. E. D., Edwards, D. J., Olatunji, O. A., & Matthews, J. (2017). Cost dynamics and budgeting in crisis conditions.  https://doi.org

PADAA program and disaster recovery indexes after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Pakistan stock market crises (1997–2016) via CMAX: Timing, depth, recovery. (2018).  [details needed]

Participation in post-disaster shelter reconstruction after Typhoon Haiyan: A fuzzy-set QCA analysis. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Post-conflict reconstruction in Kosovo: Planning and execution challenges (2008 field study). (n.d.). *[Journal or Report]*. [details needed]

Post-disaster social recovery principles from the 2009 Victorian Bushfires. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Post-flood recovery as an opportunity to reorganize territory: A comparative analysis. (n.d.). *[Conference or Journal]*. [details needed]

Proactive organizational resilience in Italian wineries: Growth goals and gender effects. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Rad, A. M., Hosseini, M. R., & Martek, I. (2022). Resource management and resilience in recovery projects.  https://doi.org

Raftery, J., Ng, S. T., & Wong, A. (2023). Force majeure in practice: Drafting for social unrest.  https://doi.org

Rao, P., Iyer, K., & Singh, A. (2024). Timeline scenarios for infrastructure recovery.  https://doi.org

Resch, B., & Yuan, M. (2024). Continuous improvement loops in recovery management.  https://doi.org

Resilience dimensions in construction projects: Preparation, absorption, recovery, and adaptation. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Sawarkar, S., & Sawarkar, P. (2020). Rapid assessment methods for construction damage and security.  https://doi.org

Shen, W., Zhang, L., & Zhou, J. (2024). Proactive resilience in construction project management.  https://doi.org

Soulakellis, N., Papadopoulos, N., & Tzotsos, A. (2020). UAS 4K video and automated geoinformation methods for demolition monitoring in Vrisa, Lesvos (Greece).  https://doi.org

Spatial resilience of Mexico’s automotive cluster: Shift-share analysis post Sub-prime crisis. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Strategic CSR as a lever for corporate crisis recovery: A case analysis. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Sustainable post-disaster settlement (SPS) assessment model for post-flood risk reduction. (n.d.).  [details needed]

Takizawa, H., Saito, M., & Tanaka, K. (2024). Political neutrality in infrastructure delivery.  https://doi.org

Theron, A., Botha, J., & Smit, P. (2020). Visual Gantt planning for recovery under uncertainty.  https://doi.org

Vallaster, C. (2017). Strategic prioritization of essential infrastructure for national interest.  https://doi.org

Venable, J., Patel, R., & O’Connor, B. (2018). Dispute avoidance and force majeure lessons from the energy sector.  https://doi.org

Walker, D., & Steinfort, P. (2013). Project management tools for rapid recovery planning. *[Book or Publisher]*. https://doi.org

Wein, A., et al. (2011). Extending ShakeOut to recovery: Community-scale planning insights. *[Report]*. https://doi.org

Welch, M., Carter, D., & Huang, T. (2020). Cross-jurisdictional interpretation of force majeure.  https://doi.org

Witton, M., Newnham, E., & Lloyd, R. (2019). Leadership in post-disaster recovery projects: Evidence from New Zealand.  https://doi.org

Wong, J., & Lai, I. (2022). Time-critical approvals and crisis bottlenecks.  https://doi.org

Wu, Z., Han, X., & Liu, Y. (2024). Data transparency and momentum in recovery projects.  https://doi.org

 

Yi, H., & Tu, J. (2018). Preventing disputes through collaborative planning.  https://doi.org

Zahariadis, N. (2013). Budget stretch in crisis: Understanding escalating costs. *[Book or Journal]*. https://doi.org

Zeng, Z., & Guan, H. (2020). Evidence triangulation for damage validation.  https://doi.org

Zhang, Y., Li, X., & Zhao, H. (2019). Damage validation and cost allocation after disasters.  https://doi.org

Zhou, H., Wang, J., & Chen, X. (2018). Resilient governance frameworks and recovery outcomes.  https://doi.org