2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 01.15 – Limitation of Liability

Clause 1.15, previously in Sub-Clause 17.6 (1999 Edition), is now separated from Risk and Responsibility. It exempts parties from liability for loss, including loss of use, profit, or contracts, with exceptions for certain sub-clauses, notably Sub-Clauses 8.8 and 13.3.1(c).

By |13/11/2024|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 01.15 – Limitation of Liability

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 14 -Contract Price and Payment

Clause 14 outlines payment, certificates, and release from liability. While the methodology remains unchanged, procedural adjustments may delay payments but aim for prompt claim resolution. Some changes benefit contractors: e.g. claims are addressed during or shortly after the contract period.

By |13/11/2024|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 14 -Contract Price and Payment

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 13 – Variations and Adjustments

Clause 13 clarifies the Engineer’s power to vary, allowing contractors to object to unforeseeable variations. Significant limitations include objections for health, safety, and environmental impacts. Variations must align with Employer’s Requirements, and supplemental agreements may be needed for significant changes.

By |13/11/2024|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 13 – Variations and Adjustments

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 12 – Tests after Completion

Clause 12 covers Tests after Completion, often required for process and power contracts. Tests are conducted by the Employer, with significant changes including competent staff requirement, testing per Employer’s Requirements and O&M Manuals, and new provisions for test timing and notice.

By |13/11/2024|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 12 – Tests after Completion

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 11 – Defects After Taking Over

Clause 11 has been clarified, with detailed provisions for notices and periods, DNP for Parts, and clearer time limits. Changes include risk allocation, compensation for denied access, and limited liability for Plant damage. Some cross-references may cause confusion.

By |13/11/2024|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 11 – Defects After Taking Over

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 07 – Plant, Materials and Workmanship

Clause 7 of FIDIC 2017 mandates specified quality for plant, materials, and workmanship, requiring defect rectification. It covers testing, inspection, and rejection to ensure compliance. All sub-clauses have changed, with several significant modifications.

By |13/11/2024|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 07 – Plant, Materials and Workmanship

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 04 – The Contractor

Clause 4 changes include defining 'fitness for purpose' in Employer's Requirements, adjusting the Performance Security, handling communications by the Contractor's Representative, setting subcontracting limits, enhancing health and safety obligations, redefining unforeseeable conditions, and increasing Contractor risk for access routes.

By |13/11/2024|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 04 – The Contractor

Cherry Picking FIDIC 2017

Much has been said about the new Red, Yellow and Silver Books 2nd Editions launched by FIDIC in December last year. The most obvious comment has been about their size, almost 50,000 words, which is some 60% longer than the 1999 forms. Although the 1999 forms were not perfect, most regular users seem to be agreed that they did not need 20,000 words to fix the issues. This consensus led this author to attempt to cherry-pick the good bits from the 2017 forms and to propose amendments to add the good ideas to the 1999 forms. The amendments apply to all three forms unless it is indicated otherwise.

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 21 – Disputes and Arbitration

Clause 21 introduces a standing Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB) instead of an ad-hoc DAB. The DAAB is appointed at the outset, assists in dispute avoidance, and its decisions are binding. The amicable settlement period is reduced to 28 days.

By |27/01/2018|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 21 – Disputes and Arbitration

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 18 – Exceptional Events

Clause 18 replaces "Force Majeure" with "Exceptional Events," aiming for clarity in civil law jurisdictions. Strikes and lockouts are now distinct from riots. The clause maintains natural catastrophes and clarifies that invoking it results in contract termination.

By |27/01/2018|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 18 – Exceptional Events

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 16 – Termination by Contractor

Clause 16 introduces new grounds for suspension and termination, including non-compliance with binding decisions and non-receipt of Commencement Date Notice. It addresses corruption, and clarifies termination grounds and procedures. Contractors gain protection against financial consequences and can claim profit loss.

By |27/01/2018|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 16 – Termination by Contractor

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 15 – Termination by Employer

Clause 15 introduces new grounds for termination: non-compliance with a binding Engineer’s Determination or DAAB decision; and maxing out Delay Damages (actual deduction not necessary). Uncertainty remains if EOT is granted post-termination, potentially affecting the legality of termination.

By |27/01/2018|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 15 – Termination by Employer

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 10 – Employers Taking Over

Clause 10 changes include express references to As-Built Records, Manuals, and Training for Taking Over, a Notice of No-objection requirement, deemed Taking Over without these Notices, immediate issuance of Taking-Over Certificates, and a 14-day prevention period.

By |27/01/2018|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 10 – Employers Taking Over

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 08 – Commencement Delays and Suspension

Clause 8 changes include enhanced Programme requirements, Advance Warning mechanism, no Sub-Clause 20.2 notice for extension due to Variation, further definition of adverse climatic conditions, acceleration methods under Sub-Clause 13.3.1, and a cap on Delay Damages lifted for severe misconduct.

By |27/01/2018|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Delay, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 08 – Commencement Delays and Suspension

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 03 – The Engineer

The main changes in Clause 3 are that: the Engineer may exercise its authority without the Employer's consent under Sub-Clause 3.7; and the Engineer must act “neutrally” under Sub-Clause 3.7. The intention is that the Engineer treats both Parties fairly.

By |27/01/2018|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 03 – The Engineer
Go to Top