FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 15
Click through to read Corbett & Co.'s helpful commentary on FIDIC 1999 book Clause 15
The Employer’s Agent
The Engineer is deemed to act for the Employer and is essentially the Employer’s agent under the FIDIC Red Book 1999. He is not a wholly impartial intermediary, unless such a role is specified in the Particular Conditions, and there is no general obligation under the FIDIC Red Book 1999 for the Engineer to act independently or impartially. However, when he is required to make a determination under Sub-Clause 3.5, he is obliged to make it a fair determination and when he is obliged to issue an Interim Payment Certificate under Sub-Clause 14.6, or a Final Payment Certificate under Sub-Clause 14.13, he must fairly determine the amount due.
FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 4
Clause 4 sets out various obligations which fall on the Contractor under the Contract and which cannot easily be classified elsewhere. The obligations under Clause 4 are of a wide range covering 24 different topics. Sub-Clause 4.1 sets out the Contractor’s general obligation to carry out his duties in accordance with the contract. Clause 4 of the FIDIC Red Book 1999 amalgamates various Contractor obligations under one provision. However this Clause 4 is not exclusive as there are also other Contractor obligations scattered throughout the Contract. Other significant general obligations which could equally have been included in Clause 4 (and which should be read in conjunction with this Clause 4) are as follows: • Sub-Clause 1.3 [Communications] • Sub-Clause 1.7 [Assignment] • Sub-Clause 1.8 [Care and Supply of Documents] • Sub-Clause 1.9 [Delayed Drawings or Instructions] • Sub-Clause 1.10 [Employer’s Use of Contractor’s Documents] • Sub-Clause 1.12 [Confidential Details] • Sub-Clause 1.13 [Compliance with Laws] • Clause 6 [Staff and Labour] • Clause 7 [Plant, Materials and Workmanship] • Sub-Clause 8.2 [Time for Completion] • Sub-Clause 8.3 [Programme]
FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary of Clause 11
Clause 11 requires that the Works shall be in the condition required by the Contract at the end of the Defects Notification Period. Where the Contractor carries out work in the Defects Notification Period, it is not entitled to receive payment if the work was a result of a defect in the design for which the Contractor was responsible. Similarly, if the Plant, Materials or workmanship are not in accordance with the Contract or there is a failure by the Contractor to comply with any other obligation then it is required to remedy the problem without payment. The Employer may obtain an extension of the Defects Notification Period if the Works, a Section or a major piece of Plant cannot be used during the Defects Notification Period. The Contractor is required to remedy any defect during the Defect Notification Period and, if it does not, the Employer may claim against the Contractor. Rights are given to the Contractor to undertake this work subject to the Employer’s reasonable security restrictions. Once the Defects Notification Period has expired the Engineer is required within 28 days, subject to receipt of the Contractor’s Documents and the completion of any tests, to issue a Performance Certificate. It is the Performance Certificate that is deemed to constitute acceptance of the Works. Sub-Clause 11.10 provides that after the Performance Certificate has been issued, each Party will remain liable for the fulfilment of any obligation which remains unperformed at the time. The extent and meaning of this clause is open to debate.
The Courtesy Trap – FIDIC’s Sub-Clause 20.5 – Amicable Settlement and Emirates Trading
In this article Corbett & Co. Director Andrew Tweeddale addresses whether sub-clause 20.5 is a condition precedent to the commencement of an arbitration or whether it is an obligation, the breach of which will not affect the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to resolve the dispute.
FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 5
Clause 5 defines a ‘nominated Subcontractor’ as either a Subcontractor who is stated in the Contract as being ‘nominated’; or who the Engineer instructs the Contractor to employ as a Subcontractor under clause 13. The Contractor may object to employing a nominated Subcontractor. A number of grounds are deemed to be reasonable for objecting and these include: where there are reasons to believe that the Subcontractor does not have sufficient resources, competence or financial strength to complete the subcontracted works; where the Subcontractor refuses to agree to indemnify the Contractor for any negligence; or where the Subcontractor does not agree to carry out the works so as not to put the Contractor in breach of its own obligations. If the Employer requires that the Contractor employ a nominated Subcontractor where a reasonable objection has been made then it must agree to indemnify the Contractor. The Contractor is required to pay to the nominated Subcontractor the amounts which the Engineer certifies to be due in accordance with the Subcontract. This sum is then added to the Contract Price as well as any amount for overheads and profit as stated in the appropriate schedule or Appendix to Tender. However, before issuing a Payment Certificate to the Contractor the Engineer may ask for evidence that previous payments have been made to the nominated Subcontractor. If evidence is not provided by the Contractor or the Contractor does not satisfy the Engineer that there are grounds for withholding payment then the Employer may at his discretion pay the nominated Subcontractor directly.
FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 1
Clause 1 sets out many of the boilerplate clauses within the Contract and provides a number of definitions which are used thereafter. The Clause has been substantially changed from the Red Book 4th edn with a raft of new clauses added. Sub-Clause 1.3 deals with communications and states that approvals, certificates, consents and determinations shall not be unreasonable withheld or delayed. The assignment provisions in Sub-Clause 1.7 have now changed so that restriction on assignment applies to both the Contractor and Employer. Delayed Drawings and Instructions is dealt with at Sub-Clause 1.9. This was previously dealt with at Clause 6.4 of the Red Book 4th edn and it is unclear why such an important provision has now been rolled up in the General Provisions clause.
Where Do FIDIC Cases Go?
FIDIC is arguably the most widely used standard form of international construction contract but reported FIDIC cases are rare. Is it time for an increased publication of FIDIC cases? There are three categories of decisions arising out of FIDIC dispute resolution provisions: 1. Decisions of the Engineer or the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB), which will generally not be published or reported to anyone other than the parties involved in the dispute. 2. Decisions of arbitral tribunals, which are not usually made public although this is subject to certain exceptions. 3. Decisions of national courts, which are a relatively rare occurrence for the reasons discussed below.
Employers Beware
How important is it for an Employer to give a Sub-Clause 2.5 notice of a set-off or cross-claim under the FIDIC Red Book form of contract? Very, according to the Privy Council in NH International (Caribbean) Limited v National Insurance Property Development Company Limited . It found that: o Sub-Clause 2.5 applies to any claims the Employer wishes to make. o The Employer must make such claims promptly and in a particularised form. o Where the Employer fails to raise a claim as required, the back door of set-off or cross-claims is firmly shut. The case also serves as a warning to Employers who take a relaxed view towards their obligation under Sub-Clause 2.4 to provide reasonable evidence of the financial arrangements they have made and are maintaining to pay the Contract Price. It doesn’t matter how wealthy or important the Employer is (it may be a Government, company or individual with very substantial funds) detailed financial information must still be provided.
Knowledge Hub – externally published articles
Articles on Arbitration The Need For Reasons - O, Reason
PERSERO 2 – Singapore Court of Appeal rules DAB decisions are enforceable by way of interim award
On 27 May 2015, the 160-page reserved judgement of the Singapore Court of Appeal (“CA”) was handed down in Persero 2 - PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK (“PGN”) v CRW Joint Operation (“CRW”)[1]. It will be regarded a triumph for contractors wishing to enforce DAB decisions. The CA ruled that the interim award issued by the arbitral tribunal ordering enforcement of the DAB’s decision should stand. Using the concept of an “inherent premise”, the CA made two important findings: 1) it was not necessary for the Contractor to refer the failure to pay (the secondary dispute) back to the DAB; and 2) it was not necessary for him to refer the merits (the primary dispute) in the same single arbitration as his application to enforce.
FIDIC’S procedures for the appointment of a DAB need improvement
If the parties to a FIDIC contract cannot agree on a suitable DAB member and they have selected FIDIC as their appointing entity, they may request FIDIC to appoint that DAB member. FIDIC’s present procedures however seem less than ideal. They increase the prospect of rejection of the candidate nominated by FIDIC in the first instance and so also the need to repeat the exercise. They could also result in an appointment unacceptable to one or both parties. In my view they need to be revised.
Release from Performance – FIDIC’s Clause 19.7 and Other Remedies
Is not uncommon to find that an employer attempts to pass almost all risk in a contract to the contractor. However, such an approach may have unforeseen consequences when events later make completion of the works impossible. Here Andrew Tweeddale considers how and when a contractor might be released from further performance.
Time’s up for FIDIC’s Pink Book?
Rumour reaches us that the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) behind the Pink Book, FIDIC’s harmonised version of the 1999 Red Book, will discontinue the experiment. Should we be sorry to see the back of the Pink Book? We think not.
Can an Employer Instruct an Airport Instead of a Road?
What is the point of a variations clause? It is
Comparison between the Red Book 1999 and the MDB Harmonised Edition Pink Book 2010
Read the full article here.
Can a party ignore FIDIC’s DAB process and refer its dispute directly to arbitration?
If there is no DAB appointed by the parties to a FIDIC 1999 contract, may disputes be referred directly to arbitration under clause 20.8? This issue has troubled many in the industry – and has now been considered in English and Swiss courts.
FIDIC’s Silver Book – Payments due shall not be withheld … really?
There is a substantial difference between the payment provisions of the FIDIC 1999 Red and Yellow Books compared with the Silver Book. This article explores how a court in Queensland (Australia) has dealt with the Silver Book’s provision. Contractors have good cause to be wary.
BoQ rates neither ‘immutable nor sacrosanct’
A contractor who has loaded a tender BoQ rate in the expectation of a windfall will be interested to learn that recent guidance from the Hong Kong Court of Appeal supports the engineer’s request for evidence of the original tender build up and, among other things, will disallow all loading if substantial differences in actual quantities would make it reasonable to do so under the contract. This article explores that new guidance which finds contract rates to be neither immutable nor sacrosanct in such circumstances.
Newsflash!
It is not every day that a law firm sees its lawyers’ published articles handed up to the judge to consider as authoritative commentaries – and then be referred to as “erudite” in the judgment that follows! Taner Dedezade, counsel with Corbett & Co., has just received such an accolade.
