Cost to Complete a Stalled Dubai Project: Scope, Funding Gaps and Questions to Ask

1. Separate recorded progress, remaining cost and funding

DLD's Project Status Enquiry provides project details and completion-percentage information. Use it to establish the official starting record. AECOM's discussion of partly completed buildings identifies a separate task: examining the cost of finishing an existing scheme, potentially with adaptations after a prolonged pause.

For this guide, cost to complete means an estimate of expenditure still required to reach a clearly defined endpoint. Funding gap means the difference between that expenditure and the resources assumed available to meet it. The definitions must be consistent throughout the assessment.

DR recommends keeping three questions on separate lines: what progress is recorded, what remaining obligations have been priced, and what money can actually arrive when needed? A project described as 70% complete does not establish that only 30% of its original budget remains to be spent.

References: DLD — Project Status Enquiry · AECOM — The Case for Refurbishment, part-completion discussion · KOW Building Consultants — Cost to Complete

2. Define exactly what the estimate is meant to deliver

Begin the brief with a dated endpoint. Does the estimate cover remaining building works, testing and commissioning, the work needed to pursue applicable approvals, or a broader restart including identified settlement costs? Write down inclusions and exclusions before discussing a headline total.

RICS's explanation of cost prediction connects reliable reporting with the quality of inputs, documentation and assumptions. DR's practical application is to give every estimate a version number, scope date and named preparer, then attach an unresolved-questions list.

For example, a quotation limited to structure and façade should not be compared directly with one that also includes lifts, internal services and commissioning. Ask who will define omitted packages and when their costs will be added. An exclusion can be reasonable, but it must remain visible in the overall funding discussion.

References: RICS — A new standard for cost prediction, 25 November 2020

3. Build an evidence matrix before requesting a firm conclusion

The following is DR's proposed briefing matrix. It is not an authority filing checklist or a substitute for a consultant's agreed scope. Assign a responsible person to each open item and record whether the evidence is current, historical, assumed or unavailable.

Request only information you are entitled to receive. An owner group can prepare questions without collecting or circulating other purchasers' private banking records.

References: KOW Building Consultants — scope, site condition and programme considerations

4. Ask how uncertainty appears in the price

RICS's explanation of cost prediction discusses uncertainty, risk assessment and the information supporting an estimate. A single precise-looking total should therefore be read alongside its basis and limitations.

DR recommends asking the preparer to distinguish measured work, supplier quotations, provisional allowances and unresolved scope. Ask which quotation dates are being used and what happens if procurement starts later. If two allowances cover the same uncertainty, identify the possible duplication.

Give uncertainty an action: an inspection to commission, a quotation to obtain or a scope decision to make. A reserve without an explanation is difficult to review; an unresolved item without any allowance can make the headline total appear more complete than it is.

References: RICS — A new standard for cost prediction: uncertainty and reporting · RICS — Cost prediction professional standard

5. Worked example: AED 36 million of uses and a funding gap

This example is entirely hypothetical. It describes no real project, owner or funding offer. All figures are invented and stated in AED millions. Assume the agreed scope contains the following remaining cash uses, with no overlap between rows.

For this simplified model only, assume the listed uses include all applicable cash taxes, fees and liabilities within the defined scope. That assumption must be tested in a real engagement; the table does not prescribe tax treatment or settlement obligations.

The AED 12 million gap depends on collecting the forecast AED 6 million. It is the additional funding requirement beyond the listed sources, not proof that this amount will cover every timing need. The model also assumes the AED 10 million capital commitment is available when needed and its conditions are satisfied. A letter expressing interest would not satisfy that assumption.

This is a sources-and-uses calculation, not an investment valuation. It does not estimate sale proceeds, owner recovery, returns or the legal ability to use particular funds.

6. Test timing as well as the final total

Keep the same hypothetical example and introduce two explicit stress assumptions: total remaining uses increase by 10%, and the AED 6 million of purchaser receipts arrives after the period being tested. The 10% is a teaching input, not a forecast or recommended contingency.

Stressed uses become AED 39.6 million: AED 36 million multiplied by 1.10. For this simplified timing test, assume all AED 39.6 million falls due during the tested period, before the delayed purchaser receipts arrive. Assume the initial AED 18 million—AED 8 million of accessible project funds plus AED 10 million of committed capital—is available before those payments.

Additional funding of AED 21.6 million would then be needed before collection: AED 39.6 million minus AED 18 million. This includes AED 6 million temporarily bridging the delayed receipts. After collection, the eventual net additional funding requirement would be AED 15.6 million, excluding financing costs. This is the net amount required beyond the initial AED 18 million, not a further unpaid shortfall after all modelled expenditure has been funded.

The AED 6 million difference between the pre-collection requirement and the eventual net requirement is a timing issue. DR recommends placing expected receipts and payments on the same monthly schedule so a late inflow is not treated as cash available for an earlier bill.

Also ask whether receipts depend on achieving construction milestones that themselves need funding. Show that dependency explicitly. A balanced final total can still conceal a shortage before the next stage can begin.

7. Compare proposals on the same scope and date

Before comparing two restart proposals, ask each preparer to complete the same reconciliation sheet. DR suggests columns for included work, exclusions, assumptions, payment timing, validity date and the party carrying each unresolved cost.

A lower quotation may reflect a smaller scope, different specifications or a shorter assumed programme. These are questions to resolve, not reasons to infer poor conduct. Request an explanation of material differences and retain both the original and clarified versions.

• Are the same buildings, external works and delivery endpoint included?
• Are remediation and testing assumptions comparable?
• Which costs sit outside the construction contract?
• What remains conditional on access, design decisions or approvals?
• Who bears an increase if a stated assumption proves wrong?
• What evidence would cause the estimate to be revised?

References: RICS — consistent inputs and transparent reporting

8. Keep technical feasibility separate from authority decisions

Articles 6 and 9 of Dubai Decree No. 33 of 2020 address completion arrangements for unfinished projects within the Tribunal framework, including RERA's assessment of proposed completing developers. Article 4 excludes projects located within Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) boundaries from the decree's scope. A privately prepared estimate does not appoint a developer or authorise a restart.

DR recommends maintaining a separate authority-and-rights checklist alongside the cost model. Identify which decisions the proposal assumes have already occurred, which remain pending and who must verify them. Obtain qualified project-specific legal advice before relying on a proposed structure; consult the original Arabic legislation for interpretation.

References: Dubai Decree No. 33 of 2020 — Articles 4, 6 and 9

9. Give each participant a useful task

Owners can identify the question they need answered and preserve their own relevant records. Owner groups can agree which project-wide questions to raise, without presenting collective preference as a funding commitment.

An incoming developer or investor can request a defined scope, qualified technical input and a funding schedule. Ask the appointed professionals to explain what their engagement covers, what they could not inspect and which conclusions remain conditional.

DR's suggested division of work keeps coordination, professional assessment and formal decisions visible. It also makes it easier to identify who can close an information gap instead of asking every participant to endorse the same headline number.

10. Finish with a dated brief and the next unresolved question

Prepare a short cover sheet naming the project, assessment date, intended endpoint, estimate version and the documents available. Add the cost total, funding assumptions, timing shortfall and unresolved authority questions. Attach the detailed schedules rather than compressing everything into a percentage.

Update the brief when a material input changes: scope, inspection findings, quotations, funding conditions or the proposed programme. Preserve the previous version so the reason for a changed total remains traceable.

Development Resolution can help organise the project position and questions for assessment. A project-specific cost opinion requires appropriately qualified professionals and the relevant evidence. The purpose of this preparation is to make a completion proposal assessable, without promising funding, approval or delivery.

References: Development Resolution — How assessment works