If an Employer sets off certified but unpaid sums without following Sub-Clause 2.5, it may breach contract terms under FIDIC 1999. This article explores whether Employers can bypass the Engineer’s role and why the clause’s wording is crucial to both Contractors and Employers.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clause 5 changes include specifying designer qualifications, moving part of Sub-Clause 5.1 to 1.9, changing "approval" to "No-objection" in Sub-Clause 5.2, and introducing a new procedure for addressing design errors in Sub-Clause 5.8.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
Up until the spring of 2020, a FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 13.7 [Adjustments for Changes in Legislation][1] claim was just one of many issues to be resolved, for example, in a delay and disruption claim or a Cost claim. However, the focus it receives in the context of Covid-19 is drastically different. Many in the industry are using the changes in legislation provision to seek financial compensation in a situation that would otherwise potentially only attract an extension of time.[2] Awarding Cost for Covid-19 events regardless of the circumstances may seem to some (Contractors mostly, though there are Employers and Engineers who agree) like the appropriate thing to do, but whether it is correct according to the Contract is a different question.
In March 2019, in the English Court of Appeal, Sir
Page Corrigenda 146 For provisions referring to sub-clause 3.7, see
A contract may require a party giving notice of a claim to specify the contractual or legal basis of that claim in the notice (or the supporting particulars). What if that party states a contractual or legal basis for the claim but later (perhaps with the benefit of additional information or because of advice from its lawyers) changes its mind or wants to include further contractual or legal bases? This was considered by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Maeda Corporation and China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited v Bauer Hong Kong Limited [2020] HKCA 830. It found that a subcontractor could not change the contractual basis for its claim once the time period for providing such notice had expired. What, if any, impact will this decision have on the FIDIC forms of contract?
Covid-19 has had huge consequences around the world and unfortunately
Triple Point was a case heard in the English Court of
FIDIC is concerned about its image. It says that heavily amending the FIDIC forms of contract impacts upon the FIDIC brand and that this is damaging FIDIC’s reputation. It seeks to address this with the introduction of five Golden Principles. But the Golden Principles are merely aspirational; they are not binding and have no contractual effect. Does this render them a pointless gesture ‘trying to hold back the tide’?
