The College of Independent Trainers has been launched and FIDIC training organisations and individual trainers at CIFT are already offering a variety of public and in-house courses for 2023 in person or online.
Construction costs are escalating. Under existing contracts, an employer will not want to pay more for the works. But forcing a contractor to perform works that are unprofitable or causing a massive loss is unlikely to be in the best interests of the project. It may result in the insolvency of the contractor forcing the employer to abandon the contract or re-let it, probably at a premium. Is a mechanism for cost adjustment, such as FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 13.8 [Adjustments for Changes in Costs], an answer?
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.
El efecto del coronavirus en la construcción es amplio y desconocido, en particular, en cómo evaluar el tiempo y el dinero perdido. Por fortuna, los contratos FIDIC proveen varias opciones a las Partes para manejar riesgos y proteger derechos. Este artículo analiza cómo se trataría la pandemia del Covid-19 bajo el Contrato de Construcción de Obras FIDIC 2010 armonizado por el Banco Mundial en español.
The recent English case Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Limited v Euler Hermes Europe SA (NV) [2019] EWHC 2250 (Comm) highlights that where an on demand bond is assigned and a demand then made under that bond, the beneficiary will need to be sure not only that the demand is compliant with the terms of the bond but also that the assignment was effective in the first place.
It has been suggested that FIDIC’s new Emerald Book may be “a contractors’ charter for riches”. 1 This article examines whether this new form of contract for underground works by FIDIC and the International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association is too contractor-biased or whether it provides a sensible and pragmatic risk allocation process, in an area of construction and engineering which is well known for claims. If more risks are placed on the Employer in this form of contract, what are the benefits of the contract compared to, for example, an unamended FIDIC Yellow Book?
In all construction contracts, one of the central principles is the Employer’s obligation to pay the contract price. The Contractor will be wary about the Employer’s financial standing and ability to pay and concerned to ensure that payments are made on time and that effective remedies are available in case of late or non-payment. The FIDIC standard forms of contract contain provisions dealing with these aspects.
FIDIC’s 2017 editions introduced a new Claims management system in clause 20 that channels Claims through two very different procedures. One of them is very simple and involves almost no risk whereas the other will require investment of significant project resources, will take the parties a considerable amount of time to resolve and carries fatal consequences if not followed properly. It has therefore become a priority for anyone handling this Claims management system to understand how clause 20.1 sorts the different types of Claims and to recognise that the classification scheme is not as straightforward as the wording of the Contract suggests, as explored in this article.
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.
“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.
Clause 12 deals with Tests after Completion. It is more
Clause 7 deals with a variety of issues relating to Plant Materials and Workmanship. All sub clauses have been subject to some change – in several cases of significance.
The 2017 Clause 6 is largely the same as its 1999 counterpart. However, it contains some notable additions and differences, the most glaring of which is the addition of a new type of staff/labourer to the Contractor’s Personnel called Key Personnel in Sub-Clause 6.12.
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.
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.
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.
Contractors are sometimes concerned about the politics of their FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 20.1 notices. Some Contractors may consider that serving Sub-Clause 20.1 notices may send the wrong message, particularly in the honeymoon period when the works have just begun. However, the consequences of failing to serve a timely claim notice are so dire that doubtless the issue is regularly on every Contractor’s mind. The case of Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar1 in the Technology and Construction Court of England and Wales provided some welcomed relief to many Contractors worldwide who may now attempt to rely on its finding on the timing of claim notices when postponing service of these crucial notices.
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]
Earlier this year, the English High Court considered a heavily amended FIDIC Yellow Book 1999. Whilst the case is specific to the particular contractual amendments it is worth review. The case is J Murphy & Sons Ltd v Beckton Energy Ltd. It proceeded in court and on an expedited basis as a matter of some urgency because a bond was about to be called for non-payment of delay damages. The Contractor claimed the call would affect his commercial reputation, standing and creditworthiness, and may well need to be disclosed in future tenders. He had not paid the delay damages because there had been no agreement or determination of the entitlement to such by the Engineer under Sub-Clauses 2.5 and 3.5.
Sub-Clause 13.1 deals with the right of the Engineer to vary the Contract. This right can be exercised at any time up to the issue of the Taking-Over Certificate. Sub-Clause 13.2 deals with value engineering and permits the Contractor to propose a change which will benefit the Employer. The proposal is prepared at the cost of the Contractor, who designs the change. Sub-Clause 13.3 deals with the procedure prior to the Engineer instructing a variation. The Engineer may request a proposal from the Contractor. However, while the Contractor is preparing the proposal it must proceed with the works. Sub-Clause 13.4 deals with payment in applicable currencies. Sub-Clause 13.5 deals with Provisional Sums and ought to be read with Sub-Clause 1.1.4.10 which defines Provisional Sum as follows:- “a sum (if any) which is specified in the Contract as a provisional sum, for the execution of any part of the Works or for the supply of Plant, Materials or services under Sub-Clause 13.5 [Provisional Sums].” The Provisional Sum can only be used where there is an Engineer’s instruction and the Contractor receives payment for only the work done to which the Provisional Sum relates. Sub-Clause 13.6 deals with daywork. This is where work of a minor or incidental nature is to be carried out. The work is then valued in accordance with the Daywork Schedule in the Contract or if there is no Daywork Schedule then the alternative method of payment as prescribed in the Contract. Sub-Clause 13.7 deals with the Cost arising from changes in the Laws of the Country which affect the Contractor in performance of his obligations under the Contract. Where the Contractor suffers delay or additional Cost then it must give notice under Sub-Clause 20.1 of the Contract. Sub-Clause 13.8 deals with adjustments for changes in cost. This Sub-Clause only applies where the “table of adjustment data” included in the Appendix to Tender has been completed. If the Sub-Clause does apply then the amounts payable to the Contractor for rises and fall in the cost of the Works are adjusted by a formula.
We are a leading construction law company specialising in the avoidance and resolution of international construction and engineering disputes, with particular expertise in the FIDIC forms of contract.
Founded and run by Corbett & Co., Cornerstone Seminars addresses the FIDIC international standard forms of contracts.
Corbett & Co International Construction Lawyers Ltd is a limited liability company registered in England and Wales with registered Company No: 6306227. It is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA No. 471935). All references on this website to “Corbett & Co.”, or “the company”, should be read as referring to Corbett & Co International Construction Lawyers Ltd. A list of the directors and their qualifications is available under the heading “Our Team” or on request.
© Corbett & Co. 2024
