The 20-Day Trap: When Review Periods Delay More Than Decisions

In many construction contracts, a 20-business-day review period is written in as standard—intended to give clients or superintendents sufficient time to assess contractor submissions properly. From a client’s perspective, it’s a practical safeguard: they may be reviewing complex designs, safety-critical procedures, or packages requiring input from multiple departments. The goal is to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance—without being rushed.

But from the contractor’s point of view, particularly when the submission relates to an item on the critical path, the review period can feel less like a buffer and more like a bottleneck. Time-sensitive approvals can languish for weeks, while teams are forced to standby, unable to progress. This is where friction emerges—and where we, as an industry, need to ask: are our review periods supporting delivery, or simply preserving process?

The Origins of the 20-Day Rule

The 20-business-day clause isn’t arbitrary. It’s commonly inherited from standard contract templates such as AS 4000, FIDIC, or modified NEC contracts. It’s meant to provide the client with a structured timeframe to evaluate contractor inputs—ranging from shop drawings and methodology statements to risk assessments and procurement data.

And often, that time is necessary. Clients may need input from safety, commercial, operations, design, and external stakeholders. A rushed review could result in errors, omissions, or approvals that later require reversal—creating more problems than they solve.

The intent behind the clause is sound. But what happens when it’s applied rigidly, regardless of the context?

The Critical Path Dilemma

Let’s consider a common situation: a contractor submits a work methodology tied to a critical path activity—say, structural steel erection or trenching works. The program is tight, the float is minimal, and any delay in approval directly threatens the overall completion date.

The contractor flags the urgency. The submission is in. Then… silence. The review period is used in full—or nearly so. When feedback finally comes, the clock has already done its damage.

Now the contractor faces a dilemma: absorb the delay, rush downstream activities, or request an Extension of Time. In some cases, the client may challenge the EOT, arguing that the review was completed within the contractual window.

Herein lies the problem. When review periods are treated as entitlements rather than maximums, they clash with the dynamics of real-time project delivery.

The Asymmetry of Accountability

This is where frustration often builds—on both sides.

Contractors are under immense pressure to perform. They are measured daily against programs, KPIs, and milestones. If they miss a delivery date, there are consequences: delay damages, loss of reputation, potential loss of work.

Clients, on the other hand, typically have no equivalent consequence for a delayed review—so long as it’s within the contract window. Even if the delay triggers knock-on impacts, the client’s risk exposure may be limited or ambiguous.

This asymmetry in accountability creates a systemic tension. While contractors race to meet submission deadlines, they’re often forced to wait in limbo for decisions that carry no real urgency on the client’s side.

Are Clients Always at Fault? Not Quite.

It would be unfair to paint clients as unmotivated or careless. In reality, many client-side project managers and superintendents are overwhelmed themselves—juggling massive workloads, stakeholder demands, compliance reviews, and multiple contractors.

Sometimes, the delay is unavoidable. Key personnel might be unavailable. Interface dependencies need clarification. Risk reviews or change control processes might introduce unintended lags. In such cases, clients are doing their best to manage competing demands.

The real issue isn’t bad intent—it’s structural. When a contract permits a 20-day review across the board, there’s little incentive to expedite unless the process explicitly distinguishes between critical and non-critical items.

What Collaborative Contracts Do Better

Some modern contracts have evolved to tackle this issue more directly. Collaborative models like NEC4, IPD (Integrated Project Delivery), and even certain D&C bespoke contracts emphasize early warning systems, real-time issue logs, and shared accountability for program delays.

Key innovations include:

Tiered review periods based on the criticality of the item.

Shortened review cycles (e.g., 5 or 10 days) for time-sensitive submissions.

Deemed approval clauses, where a lack of response within the window results in automatic acceptance (with reasonable exceptions).

Joint program ownership, where both contractor and client agree on logic links, float allocation, and decision deadlines.

These mechanisms encourage a culture of delivery rather than administration. They also reduce disputes—because expectations are clearer, and incentives are better aligned.

Recommendations: Finding a Fairer Middle Ground

To move forward, we need to rethink how review periods are applied—not just contractually, but culturally.

1. Prioritise Critical Path Submissions:
   Contract clauses should allow for faster turnaround on time-sensitive items. One size does not fit all.
2. Embed Review Periods in the Program:
   If a 20-day review is needed, it should be accounted for in the baseline program and logic. Let the risk be visible and shared.
3. Create Accountability on Both Sides:
   Clients and contractors alike should be accountable for delays. Introduce KPIs for review response times, especially on critical activities.
4. Encourage Communication Over Silence:
   Even if the full review isn’t ready, early feedback or clarifying questions within a few days can help the contractor stay mobilized and aligned.
5. Build in Flexibility Where Needed:
   Allow for deemed approvals or conditional endorsements, with the understanding that final refinements may follow.

Conclusion: Review Periods Should Support Progress, Not Stall It

The 20-day review clause is not inherently flawed. It serves a purpose. But when applied without context—particularly on the critical path—it becomes a silent disruptor of progress.

Clients and contractors are both under pressure to deliver. The challenge is not who’s right or wrong—it’s how to make the system work better for both. That means moving beyond rigid timelines and focusing instead on mutual accountability, responsiveness, and transparency.

At the end of the day, projects succeed not because everyone followed the letter of the contract, but because they worked together to deliver what the contract was always meant to achieve: a successful outcome.