FIDIC 2022 Reprints: 10 Key Areas Of Change In The FIDIC Red Book 2017

FIDIC ‘launched’ the FIDIC 2022 reprints at the FIDIC International Construction Users’ Conference 2022, in London. The reception to the changes was mixed – some embraced the clarity; others questioned the significance and cost. This article draws your attention to 10 of the key areas of change in respect of the FIDIC Red Book 2017 including the definition of Claim, matters to be agreed or determined, the definition of Dispute and Exceptional Events.

By |18/01/2023|Adjudication / Dispute Boards / ADR, Design, Dispute Boards, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 2022 Reprints: 10 Key Areas Of Change In The FIDIC Red Book 2017

FIDIC contracts—introduction to the FIDIC Green Book 2021

This Practice Note is an introduction to the FIDIC Green Book 2021 (the Short Form of Contract). It is not a fully detailed clause-by-clause commentary. This article was first published by LexisPSL

By |10/01/2023|Adjudication / Dispute Boards / ADR, Arbitration, Delay, Design, Dispute Boards, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC contracts—introduction to the FIDIC Green Book 2021

The 12 Worst Things About FIDIC 2017 – A Christmas Special

The FIDIC 2017 forms first appeared at the December FIDIC Users’ Conference four years ago. No one has suggested that the FIDIC 2017 forms of contract did not rectify some of the problems in the FIDIC 1999 forms, and in Edward Corbett’s articles,[1] ‘Cherry Picking FIDIC 2017,’ and ‘FIDIC 2017 – First Impressions of the 3-Kilo Suite’, he considered some of these changes. This new suite of contracts had, at best, a lukewarm reception when they were first reviewed, with some commentators complaining about the length of these new contracts and that the contracts had not taken account of criticisms that had been made by reviewers. This article looks at the twelve worst ‘gifts’ that FIDIC gave to us for Christmas 2017.

By |11/12/2022|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on The 12 Worst Things About FIDIC 2017 – A Christmas Special

Escalating construction costs under FIDIC: is Sub-Clause 13.8 an answer?

Construction costs are escalating. Under existing contracts, an employer will not want to pay more for the works. But forcing a contractor to perform works that are unprofitable or causing a massive loss is unlikely to be in the best interests of the project. It may result in the insolvency of the contractor forcing the employer to abandon the contract or re-let it, probably at a premium. Is a mechanism for cost adjustment, such as FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 13.8 [Adjustments for Changes in Costs], an answer?

By |30/08/2022|Cost, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Escalating construction costs under FIDIC: is Sub-Clause 13.8 an answer?

Price escalation and FIDIC: is Force Majeure an answer?

Could provisions in FIDIC contracts giving relief for ‘Force Majeure’ or ‘Exceptional Events’ provide relief to contractors suffering as a result of price escalation? It is well documented that construction and engineering projects around the globe are being affected by extreme and sometimes unprecedented price escalation. This is for many reasons including the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

By |30/08/2022|Cost, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Price escalation and FIDIC: is Force Majeure an answer?

The Dangers of Employer Set Off in your FIDIC Contract: Suspension and Termination

Unfortunately, under the FIDIC Red and Yellow Books 1999, the right of an Employer to set off from an amount already certified in a Payment Certificate but unpaid is inexplicit. Once the Employer has a Sub-Clause 3.5 determination, it may ask the Engineer to deduct the amount determined from the next Payment Certificate. This is clear. But rather than rely on the Engineer, can the Employer instead, itself, deduct by way of set off from an amount already certified in a Payment Certificate but unpaid? This is not clear.

By |18/03/2022|Adjudication / Dispute Boards / ADR, Advisory Work, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on The Dangers of Employer Set Off in your FIDIC Contract: Suspension and Termination

International Arbitration and Third Party Funding: Time to Rethink Reward and Risk?

The English Commercial Court has now confirmed in two separate decisions that an arbitral tribunal may award a winning claimant its third party funding costs. How significant are these decisions and it is time to rethink the potential reward and risk of international arbitration?

By |18/03/2022|Arbitration, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on International Arbitration and Third Party Funding: Time to Rethink Reward and Risk?

FIDIC’s New Green Form: The Missing Link

In December 2021 FIDIC issued its 2nd edition of the Green Book. It is not so much an update to the 1st edition as a new and improved, intermediate form of contract. FIDIC is promoting it as a simpler, user-friendly alternative to the FIDIC 2017 Red and Yellow Books, where significant contract administration and management resources are not needed. The Green Book 2nd edition is recommended to be used by the World Bank for projects up to US$ 10 million. The Green Book 1st edition was originally intended for projects of US $500,000 with no more than a 6-month duration. However, the Green Book 1st was sometimes used for larger projects with a duration of up to two years. The Green Book 2nd therefore takes over from where the Green Book 1st left off. This is to be welcomed. The FIDIC 2017 suite of contracts (Red/Yellow/Silver) is unsuitable for smaller projects where less administration is required. The Green Book 2nd will therefore fill a much-needed gap in the FIDIC rainbow and is likely to be attractive to both Contractors and Employers. This article looks at some of the key features of the Green Book 2nd.

By |08/03/2022|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC’s New Green Form: The Missing Link

On-Demand Bonds, Injunctions and FIDIC Contracts

Bonds and guarantees will usually be required in any major construction project and they are a requirement within FIDIC standard forms.  An on-demand bond is a security that unconditionally requires a Bank or other surety to pay to the beneficiary a sum of money once a demand has been made and, on occasion, on the presentation of certain documents.  This can be contrasted with a normal guarantee which will usually require the beneficiary to prove a liability against the obligor/debtor who has the benefit of the guarantee.  These normal types of guarantees are commonly referred to as “see to it” guarantees.[1]

By |24/11/2021|Bonds, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on On-Demand Bonds, Injunctions and FIDIC Contracts
Go to Top