Article 53 General Conditions of Contract, has not been able to resolve the disputes effectively in the last two decades. Due to the nature of construction projects, the factor of time and procedural rules for resolving disputes is of special importance that the mechanism of the general conditions of contract is unaware. This has extended the time of projects and imposed additional costs on the parties.

In order to find the causes of inefficiency and inadequate performance of the role of dispute resolution authorities in General Conditions of Contract, one should seek to answer the question of what is the objectives of legislation in this area and what legal gaps remain? Also, to what extent has the FIDIC model been successful in resolving disputes over construction projects, and how has the relevant legal system prevented claims from turning into disputes?

Examining the rules of FIDIC 2017, as a successful international example and benchmarking them for the predicted authorities in General Conditions of Contract, we find that although attempts have been made to entrust dispute resolution to non-judicial authorities, but due to legal excuses, inappropriate implementation of the dispute review framework and non-compliance with the planned schedule has practically doubled the problems of the projects.

To fix this would require amending Article 53 to make it mandatory to refer to non-judicial authorities, include in-project dispute resolution boards, change the High Technical Council as an arbitral tribunal to another efficient arbitral tribunal, and prescribe the timing of the dispute resolution process.