Driving success in complex built environment programmes

An evaluation of how contract framework choice, and the capabilities to manage outcomes, acts as a critical strategic lever for Ireland’s ambitions in built-environment development – shaping collaboration, risk allocation and delivery certainty.

Ireland is entering a decade of transformative investment. The National Development Plan sets ambitious targets for housing, transport and utilities, yet persistent delays, disputes and cost overruns continue to undermine confidence in delivery.

Success will require more than engineering excellence. The choice of contract framework is a strategic decision that shapes collaboration, allocates risk and drives commercial performance. It is not simply a legal formality - it is the foundation for certainty.

Below, we explore how aligning contract frameworks with organisational and team capabilities can unlock better outcomes. We examine two of the most widely adopted international standards, FIDIC and NEC - frameworks that international supply chain partners are already active in, or seeking entry to, the Irish market – are most likely to be familiar with and receptive to - and assess what client organisations need to succeed under each.

Critical considerations

Our analysis highlights the critical considerations for public bodies and private developers, including pharmaceutical manufacturers and data centre operators, as they navigate complex programmes at pace and scale.

The right contract framework, that complements the delivery strategy, can turn complexity into opportunity. By taking a deliberate, criteria-based approach that considers risk allocation, collaboration, transparency, market readiness and team capability, leaders can ensure that contracts become catalysts for transformation, not constraints.

Strategic comparison lens	FIDIC	NEC	Strategic implication
Delivery strategy alignment	Best suited to design-bid-build or design-build models, where risk allocation is clearly defined and client retains and specifies control over design.	Suits integrated collaborative models focussed on performance-based delivery – Target Cost, Pain/Gain sharing between parties, Alliancing; with contracts designed to easily flow down the supply chain.	NEC supports integrated, performance led delivery, while FIDIC maybe a good fit where scope is stable and clients have capability to lead and direct the management of unknowns.
Structure and format	Clause based, prescriptive (particularly the 2017 versions) and legally formal. Project specific variables can be captured in the Contract Data and Particular Conditions.	Flexible, plain-language format with modularity enabled through an Options based structure. Strong emphasis on management than legal specifics.	FIDIC offers predictability and comfort for those used to structured documentation. NEC prioritises clarity and proactive management, better suited to where delivery governance is robustly defined.
Collaboration and behavioural intent	Although, transactional in tone, collaboration can be facilitated through Value Engineering (VE) mechanisms, and depends largely on the parties, not the form. The Engineer plays a quasi-arbitral role.	Collaboration ‘in a spirit of mutual trust and co-operation’ has been a core principle behind the NEC form. Option C and D are target costs contracts, typically with pain/gain sharing mechanisms instilling a cultural shift where collaboration and mutual progress are necessary for the success of both parties.	Adopting NEC forms to enable collaboration is not just a technical exercise. Success depends on more than prescribed project management competencies; it requires a fundamental cultural shift in mindset and organisational behaviour to realise the framework’s collaborative intent.
Administrative effort	Reasonable administrative effort required to deliver specific requirements to each of the Contractor, the Employer, the Engineer and the DAAB – with the Engineer’s role being central.	With most options, frequent but lighter touch administrative efforts – such as early warnings, time sensitive responses, management of open book-keeping – require disciplined daily engagement.	FIDIC is administratively prescriptive, with the Engineer playing a key role in managing outcomes. Although NEC offers greater transparency it demands discipline, training and active management.
Programme Schedule certainty	Programme obligations exist (and can be supplemented by specifically prescribing additional requirements). Delays, in practice, resolved retrospectively via claims.	The Accepted Programme is said to be “the beating heart of the NEC” and programming is at the core of good project management. Float (Client) and Time Risk Allowance (Contractor) are used to manage risk and uncertainty in the programme.	NEC provides stronger tools for schedule predictability but only if used correctly and consistently. FIDIC’s reactive nature can undermine certainty where decision, scope volatility is high.
Dispute resolution	Multi-tiered process – Engineer led consultative agreement between parties, Engineer’s determination, Dispute Adjudication/Avoidance Board (DAAB), then arbitration. Emphasises documentation and formal procedure.	Resolving disputes have two options: adjudication with potential tribunal with/without the Construction Contracts Act (CCA2013). Avoiding Disputes through a Dispute Avoidance Board (DAB) where the board assists the parties in resolving potential disputes before they become realised.	NEC provides flexibility through dispute resolution and avoidance options and success ultimately depends on behavioral discipline. FIDIC provides a clearer path for formal resolution, potentially valuable where relationships are less mature.

Collaboration, risk-sharing and delivery certainty

Each contract framework reflects a distinct philosophy.

FIDIC offers structure, clarity and a familiar baseline for risk-managed delivery an advantage where certainty of process and accountability are critical.

NEC, promotes collaboration, proactive management and an outcome-driven approach - powerful enablers for performance transformation, but dependent on capability, behavioural maturity and planning discipline.

The decisions client organisations make today are far more than contractual. They set the tone for collaboration, risk-sharing and delivery certainty across the entire programme, ultimately driving value for project sponsors. In a market with unprecedented opportunities, these choices determine whether initiatives progress with clarity or stall amid claims, delays and defensive behaviours caused by misalignment between the client organisation and the delivery model.

How KPMG can help

KPMG’s Infrastructure and Government team helps clients turn these decisions into levers for success. We bring a lifecycle-wide perspective on how contracting choices interact with governance, delivery and asset management.

Our approach builds client-side capability, embeds collaborative cultures and moves delivery from reactive risk management to predictable, transparent and accountable outcomes across the full project lifecycle.