+ 44 (0)20 8614 6200
info@corbett.co.uk
+ 44 (0)20 8614 6200
info@corbett.co.uk
Cornerstone Seminars
FIDIC
Knowledge Hub
+ 44 (0)20 8614 6200
info@corbett.co.uk

FIDIC 1999 Upgrade Launched

Corbett & Co. has published its selection of the best bits of the FIDIC 2017 2nd Editions adapted for use with the 1999 forms. With many people put off by the 50,000+ words of the new editions, the FIDIC 1999 Upgrade will permit users to benefit from FIDIC’s new ideas and improvements.

By |July 17th, 2018|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Upgrade Launched

Clause 20 – Employer’s and Contractor’s Claims

The 1999 Clause 20 has now been divided into Clauses 20 and 21 whereby Clause 20 refers to Claims and Clause 21 refers to Disputes and Arbitration. Another main upgrade is that Employer’s Claims now need to follow the same procedure. The main list of Employer’s and Contractor’s Claims is as follows: a. Additional payment; b. Reduction in the Contract Price; c. Extension of the DNP; and d. Extension of time.

By |January 27th, 2018|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Clause 20 – Employer’s and Contractor’s Claims

Clause 18 – Exceptional Events

“Exceptional Events” has replaced “Force Majeure” and the provision is now clause 18 rather than clause 19 but otherwise little has changed. FIDIC appear to have decided that the term “force majeure” brought with it too much baggage for those using it in civil law jurisdictions. Many users have pre-conceptions about what force majeure is and is not and perhaps did not consider what FIDIC meant by the term. With the new term, users should approach the provision with a more open mind.

By |January 27th, 2018|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Clause 18 – Exceptional Events

FIDIC 2017 Books – Clause 16 – Termination by Contractor

The main changes in Clause 16 are the new grounds for suspension and termination: Non-compliance with a final and binding Engineer’s Determination and binding or final and binding DAAB decision, to the extent that such failure constitutes a “material breach” of the Employer’s obligations under the Contract. (Sub-Clauses 16.1(d) and 16.2.1(d)). What constitutes a “material breach” is likely to be the subject of many disputes (see the commentary on Clause 15). Non-receipt of a Notice of the Commencement Date under Sub-Clause 8.1 [Commencement of Works] within 84 days after receiving the Letter of Acceptance. (Sub-Clauses 16.2.1(f)). This is development to ground (h) in the FIDIC Pink (MDB) Book which states: “the Contractor does not receive the Engineer’s instructions recording the agreement of both Parties on the fulfilment of the conditions for the Commencement of the Works under Sub-Clause 8.1 [Commencement of Works]”.  It protects the Contractor from the financial consequences of fluctuations in the rates and prices during an extended delay to the start of the Works, although the Contractor ould be entitled to damages for breach of contract in any event.  More importantly, it gives the Contractor loss of profit on the entire project. Engagement in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practice at any time in relation to the Works or to the Contract. (Sub-Clauses 16.2.1(j).) This introduces parity between the Employer and Contractor.  The wording is identical to that under Sub-Clause 15.2.1(h). In the FIDIC 1999 editions, the Employer was entitled to terminate if the Contractor gave or offered an inducement or reward etc. but there was no recipricol arrangement.

By |January 27th, 2018|Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 2017 Books – Clause 16 – Termination by Contractor

FIDIC 2017 Books – Clause 15 – Termination by Employer

The main changes in Clause 15 are the new grounds for termination: Non-compliance with a final and binding Engineer’s Determination (Sub-Clause 15.2.1(a)(ii)) and a binding or final and binding DAAB decision (Sub-Clause 15.2.1(a)(iii)) to the extent that such failure constitutes a “material breach” of the Employer’s obligations under the Contract. Maxing out the Delay Damages (Sub-Clause 15.2.1(c)). There is no requirement for the Delay Damages to have been actually deducted.  It is not clear what the position would be if the Contractor claims an EOT and it is granted by the DAAB or arbitrator after termination so that the Delay Damages are reduced below the cap.  Would the termination then be unlawful? 

By |January 27th, 2018|Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 2017 Books – Clause 15 – Termination by Employer

Clause 9 – Tests on Completion

The Contractor must now prepare a detailed test programme with timing and resources. The Engineer reviews it and the result is a NONO, deemed or actual, which permits the tests to begin. This should help to remove some of the uncertainties that often can surround tests on completion. Clause 9.2 deals with delayed tests, whether the delays are caused by the Employer or Contractor. If the tests are “unduly delayed” by the Employer or Engineer or by a cause for which the Employer is responsible, it says clause 10.3 “shall apply”.

By |January 27th, 2018|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Clause 9 – Tests on Completion

FIDIC 2017 Books – Clause 3 – The Engineer

The main changes: Employer’s consent and neutrality The main changes in Clause 3 are the express provisions in Sub-Clause 3.2 [Engineer’s Duties and Authority] that the Engineer is not required to obtain the Employer’s consent before the Engineer exercises its authority under Sub-Clause 3.7 [Agreement or Determination], and that the Engineer must act “neutrally” when exercising its duties under Sub-Clause 3.7 [Agreement or Determination].  Dictionary definitions suggest that “neutrally” is similar in meaning to the words “independently” or “impartially” found in the FIDIC Red Book 4th edition and the FIDIC Yellow Book 3rd edition. However, the drafting committee believe that by using a different word it will avoid the difficulties raised in the interpretation of independently or impartially in the earlier editions.  This remains to be seen.  The intention is that “the Engineer treats both Parties even-handedly, in a fair minded and unbiased manner”.

By |January 27th, 2018|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 2017 Books – Clause 3 – The Engineer

Clause 2 – The Employer

Clause 2 now has 6 sub-clauses: Employer’s claims has been removed to clause 20; and new provisions 2.5 [Site Data and Items of Reference] and 2.6 [Employer-Supplied Materials and Employer’s Equipment] have been added. The obligations to provide possession, access and assistance with permits etc. are essentially the same, as are the consequences of failure to do so. The main change to clause 2.4 [Employer’s Financial Arrangements] is that the Employer now sets out his arrangements in the Contract Data; and the Contractor can only request evidence of ability to pay if those arrangements change, there is non-payment or there are variations in excess of 30% or a single variation over 10%.

By |January 27th, 2018|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Clause 2 – The Employer

Sub-Clause 1.15: Limitation of Liability

The substance of this provision was already in Sub-Clause 17.6 in the 1999 edition and has now been separated from other provisions dealing with Risk and Responsibility. As before it generally exempts parties from liability to the other for “loss of use of any Works, loss of profit, loss of any contract or any indirect or consequential loss” except in respect of a list of identified Sub-Clauses. The list has been extended and several of the changes are very significant. It also limits liability to certain levels in some circumstances. Finally, it excludes parties from cover by the exemption and limits in certain circumstances. All three elements have changed.

By |January 27th, 2018|English Law, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Sub-Clause 1.15: Limitation of Liability

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 19

Clause 19 deals with two distinct events: (1) Force Majeure; and (2) release from performance under the law. Force Majeure is often narrowly defined under the laws of many countries; however, within the FIDIC 1999 forms of contract it has a much broader meaning. The terminology used by FIDIC has therefore sometimes been criticized as being misleading.

By |September 28th, 2017|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 19
Go to Top