Design risk under FIDIC contracts: Navigating responsibilities and liabilities
Introduction The allocation of design risk is an important consideration
The Dangers of Employer Set Off in your FIDIC Contract: Suspension and Termination
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.
FIDIC Sub-Clause 20.5 – A Condition Precedent to Arbitration
The 1999 FIDIC forms of contract contain a number of
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 16 – Suspension and Termination by Contractor
Clause 16 addresses suspension and termination by the Contractor, including rights to suspend work, grounds for termination, cessation of work, and payment on termination. It specifies notice periods, conditions for immediate termination, and entitlements following termination.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 12 – Measurement and Evaluation
FIDIC 1999 is a re-measurement contract, with the Employer bearing the risk of quantity variations. Clause 12 covers measurement, evaluation of rates, and valuation of omissions. It lacks a standard measurement method, which has been criticized.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 09 – Tests on Completion
Clause 9 covers Tests on Completion, requiring the Contractor to give notice when ready to carry out Tests on Completion, addressing delays by either party, retesting after failure, and handling failures to meet contract requirements after retesting.
FIDIC’S procedures for the appointment of a DAB need improvement
If the parties to a FIDIC contract cannot agree on
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.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 13.8 – Variations: Adjustments for Changes in Cost
Employers avoid paying more under existing contracts, but forcing unprofitable work risks contractor insolvency. Contractors now seek protection from price fluctuations, preferring short projects or cost-plus letters of intent. Cost adjustment mechanisms, like FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 13.8, may help.
The Baby is Back in the Bath: Liquidated Damages in the UK Supreme Court
In March 2019, in the English Court of Appeal, Sir
Changing Tack
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?
Obstacles to the Appointment of an Arbitrator
Airports Authority of Trinidad and Tobago v Jusamco Pavers Ltd[1]
Jurisdiction, Admissibility and FIDIC
An issue that often arises in international arbitrations involving the FIDIC forms of contract is whether a claimant's failure to: (a) go through the dispute resolution provisions; or (b) comply with a time-bar clause gives rise to a question of admissibility or jurisdiction. Put another way, if a claimant has failed to issue a notice of claim within 28 days or failed to refer a dispute to a DAB, does the arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction to make an award on the merits or should the arbitral tribunal make an award stating that it lacks jurisdiction?
Covid-19 and FIDIC contracts – what protections and entitlements?
Covid-19 has had huge consequences around the world and unfortunately
FIDIC’S Golden Principles – holding back the tide?
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’?