Grounded Before Takeoff: The Legal Turbulence Of Airport Project Delays

Airport construction projects in the Middle East are among some of the most complex and high-stakes infrastructure developments in the world. Driven by ambitious national development plans, rapid population growth and the strategic importance of aviation hubs, these projects often involve multi-billion-dollar investments and tight delivery timelines.  They also involve a web of stakeholders, tight security and operational constraints, and intense regulatory oversight.  As a result, delay-related problems are common and often legally contentious for those involved.  These delays can give rise to claims, disputes, and risk exposure under construction contracts.  This article explores the common causes of delay in Middle Eastern airport projects and how to mitigate them.

Fragmentation of works into multiple packages

As large airport projects are too big to be built by one single contractor, they are typically broken down into multiple construction and consultancy packages such as earthworks, civil works, terminal construction, roads, baggage handling, airfield lighting, IT systems, etc. While this allows parallel progress, it also multiplies the number of interface points and dependencies.

Scope gaps and ambiguities often arise between packages, particularly in high-pressure environments driven by ambitious government timelines and fixed completion targets, leading to disputes over responsibility for delays.  Contractors may seek extensions of time or loss and expense claims when delays are caused by other packages, especially if coordination is poor or sequencing changes.  Consultants face exposure if packaging recommendations or interface management strategies are later found inadequate.

Clear delineation of scopes, coordinated baseline schedules and interface protocols, are essential for mitigating these risks.  The use of a project interface agreement or centralised interface manager can also help allocate risk more clearly.

Interface risk between airports, terminals and runways

Airport construction projects in the Middle East are typically delivered in complex, multi-phase programmes that must integrate seamlessly with existing or concurrently developing infrastructure. New terminals often need to connect to operational airfields, existing concourses, people movers, metro or rail links and utility networks.  This integration is particularly challenging in active aviation environments like those in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, where expansion works must progress without disrupting ongoing airport operations.

Coordination delays frequently arise between different contractors, government entities, and third-party authorities, such as airside operations, national rail agencies, and municipal utility providers. These delays can trigger concurrent delay arguments, complicating claims for extensions of time or prolongation costs.  Under FIDIC-based contracts commonly used in the region, failure to manage third-party access, approvals, or clearances may lead to claims of Employer default.  Similarly, consultants can face exposure if design integration is flawed or if interface planning proves unrealistic. Consultants may be liable for design coordination issues or unrealistic interface planning.

Construction programmes must therefore incorporate realistic float allowances and interface milestones, and contracts must include provisions for delay caused by third parties.  Claims for force majeure or compensation events must be carefully documented and substantiated.

Airside works in live airport environments

Working within live airports requires strict operational coordination to avoid disrupting airside activities.  As a result, contractors frequently face strict access controls, limited working windows (typically confined to nighttime) and delays caused by airport operator instructions or security requirements.

Although these challenges are generally known at the outset of a project, sufficient mitigation measures are rarely implemented and the resulting disruptions continue to cause delays.

Delay claims are common due to restricted working hours, suspensions for safety or security or unexpected instructions from airport operators.  Employers may argue that such constraints were foreseeable and part of the contractor’s risk.  Change in law or regulation clauses may be invoked for new airport authority requirements.

For airport projects in the Middle East, where authority involvement can be highly dynamic and politically sensitive, explicit and detailed risk allocation in the contract is essential.  Provisions addressing operational interfaces, airport-imposed suspensions and access protocols should be carefully negotiated and clearly documented.

MEP Works and SAS Systems

Criticality in the construction of airport projects, as in many projects, is typically driven by the Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (“MEP”) works, and Specialist Airport Systems (“SAS”) such as the baggage handling system, public address system, firefighting systems and security systems. Delays here impact the entire project’s completion.

MEP subcontractor delays frequently trigger liquidated ascertained damages (“LADs”) under main contracts.  Disputes arise over whether MEP/SAS delays are attributable to late design approvals, change orders or interface delays with civil works.  Consultants may therefore face claims for deficient coordination drawings or failure to integrate SAS designs.

To mitigate these issues, design responsibilities must be clearly defined and allocated from the outset, and realistic timeframes for commissioning should be built into the construction programme.  In the Middle East, where government authorities and airport operators have been known in the past to impose late-stage design modifications or new compliance standards, flexibility and contingency must also be factored into planning.  Close coordination between design consultants, specialist vendors and construction teams, backed by a robust interface management regime, is key to avoiding disputes and ensuring timely project delivery.

Lengthy commissioning and handover of IT and communications rooms

Commissioning of IT systems, communications rooms and data centres needed to achieve full operation involves staged testing, integration with existing networks and security clearances.  This phase is often under time pressure near project completion.

Delay in IT commissioning can prevent the issuance of Taking-Over Certificates (“TOCs”), leading to prolonged exposure to LADs.  Ambiguity in what constitutes “Substantial Completion” for IT-heavy works can also lead to disputes.  Contractors may allege employer-caused delay where access to client networks or infrastructure is not timely granted.

Accordingly, contracts should clearly define handover stages, acceptance testing protocols and commissioning timelines.  Clauses must account for progressive commissioning and partial TOC issuance where feasible.  This is particularly important in Middle Eastern mega-airport projects, where large terminal footprints and phased operational strategies are common.  Early engagement with IT integrators, airport operators and national regulatory bodies is essential to ensure realistic timelines and avoid late-stage disputes.

Conclusion

Delays in airport construction projects in the Middle East are often inevitable due to the scale, technical complexity and regional operating environment.  These projects that are typically fast-tracked under national development agendas such as Saudi Vision 2030 or the UAE’s aviation expansion plans, place intense pressure on delivery schedules.  From a legal standpoint, clear risk allocation, detailed interface management protocols and accurate scheduling are key.  Parties must carefully document progress and causes of delay to protect their legal position.  Proactive contract management, particularly around interfaces and commissioning can help prevent delay-related disputes and aid successful project delivery.