FIDIC    International Federation
of Consulting Engineers
Home  About us  Site map  Contact FIDIC 
New  News  Directories  Calendars  Products  Account   Basket 
Skip navigation links
BOOKSHOP
EVENTS
USER FORUMS
INTERNAL
YPs
REGIONS
FEDERATION
Skip navigation links
User Forums
Contracts
Home
Updates Forum
FAQ
Business Practice
Account
Sign In
1999 Contracts Updates Forum 
Comments are organised by Sub-Clause, with Sub-Clauses for Clauses 3, 5 and 12 being different for the CONS, PLANT and TURNKEY contracts, and the same for ALL contracts for the other clauses.
Clauses 01-05 Clauses 06-10 Clauses 11-15 Clauses 16-20
Sign In or Create a New Account to display an "Add new discussion" button. Then either start a new discussion Topic by clicking on the "Add new discussion" button (a Category must be selected). Or Reply to a discussion Topic by clicking on a Topic. Discussions last modified before 25 December are in the Discussion Database below.

BodyFilter
Partis bound
At end add of Para. 5 ‘The Parties agree to be bound by the terms of the Dispute Adjudication Agreement and to comply with the requirements of the Procedural Rules.’
20.02 ALL: Appointment of the Dispute Adjudication BoarduseradminApproved
Referral
After ‘…give its opinion’ add ‘such opinion shall not be a decision of the DAB and the matter may be referred to the DAB under Clause 20.4’.
20.02 ALL: Appointment of the Dispute Adjudication BoarduseradminApproved
Neither Party
Delete whole sentence ‘Neither Party…’ in Para. 7 Agreement is covered in the first sentence; ‘any matter’ could be said to include a dispute.
20.02 ALL: Appointment of the Dispute Adjudication BoarduseradminApproved
Third party and collateral rights and Novation
Third party and collateral rights - No doubt the FIDIC drafting committee are aware of the common practice within the UK construction market of using collateral contracts and direct agreements to create contractual linkages between the Employer and the Contractor's sub-contractors and/or between the Contractor, his sub-contractors and funders, freehold owners and other third parties. The FIDIC forms do not provide for such third party collateral warranties. The drafting committee could consider either providing an option in each of the contract forms or (separately) publishing a standard form of warranty for use in such circumstances.
Novation - equally, the widespread use of novation of design consultants within the domestic and international construction market is not currently reflected in the FIDIC forms.
20.01 ALL: Contractor's ClaimsJerome DunneApproved
Define Notice
We have seen numerous arguments about whether or not a claim has been "notified" by the Contractor. Suggest FIDIC includes a definition of "Notice" being a document marked as a notice and submitted to the Employer at a specified e-mail address. This avoids any argument that the Employer has been notified of claims by e.g. a spreadsheet of poorly described issues circulated as a monthly report with no proper explanation, etc.
We note in the Gold Book this clause has been softened providing the Contractor with an opportunity to make a late submission of a claim if there are "circumstances which justify the late submission". What are the circumstances envisaged? we would hope this wording is not included in the Silver Book as it seems only likely to create more confusion/arguments and encourage the late submission of claims (e.g., this type of argument is now common in respect of the NEC3 clause 61.3 where contractor's argue the notification of a compensation event is submitted late because of Project Manager default). The obligation to submit claims within a specific time period from when the Contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance offers the Contractor ample protection in the context of the purpose of the Silver Book as we understand it.
20.01 ALL: Contractor's ClaimsJerome DunneApproved
Negligent misconduct
The term "reckless misconduct" is not often used in English law. It would be more helpful if this was replaced with "negligent misconduct" which has a much wider judicial consideration. Suggest that FIDIC consider whether "reckless misconduct" is a term with clear meaning in any other jurisdiction. We are aware that the term is used in the United States for example. FIDIC's aim should be to use a term which is broadly and clearly understood.
17.06 ALL: Limitation of LiabilityJerome DunneApproved
Liability
The Clause Limiting the Liability of the Contractor in the Yellow and Silver Books need to be Supplemented to Provide Specific Limitations on the Contractor's Liability for Plant.

The Clauses limiting the Contractor's liability under the 1999 editions to the Red, Yellow and Silver Books are identical and they are fine for civil works.  As part of the harmonization process across all three Books that was done in 1999, the limitations on liability in the Yellow and Silver Books were made to be the same as those for the Red Book.

However, this is not a satisfactory solution as to Plant which may be especially important, as you know, in a Yellow or Silver Book contract.

FIDIC realized this too late to be able to make appropriate changes to the 1999 Yellow and Silver Book contracts.  However, we were able to address the question in the FIDIC Guide to the 1999 Books which was published subsequently.  In the FIDIC Guide in relation to Sub-Clause 17.6, we stated as follows:

"If the Works include major items of Plant, it is usually appropriate for the Contract to limit the duration of the Contractor's liability for such Plant; for example, to a stated number of years after the completion date stated in the Taking-Over Certificate.  After a few years' operation, it becomes increasingly difficult to establish whether any alleged defects are attributable to the Plant's design, manufacture, manuals, operation, maintenance, or a combination of these and/or other matters."

Accordingly, as far as Plant is concerned, the Contractor's liability needs to be specifically limited as compared to the Contractor's liability for civil works.  An excellent illustration of how the Contractor's liability should be limited is contained in the Yellow Book, 3rd Edition, which AVJ mentioned at the last CC meeting that he had helped prepare.

The different approach to liability taken by the Yellow Book, 3rd Edition, is well illustrated by Clause 30 of that edition entitled "Defects After Taking Over".  The FIDIC Guide to the 3rd Edition (page 100) describes Clause 30 as follows:

"The Clause follows the standard international practice for E&M contracts.  It imposes an obligation on the Contractor to replace defective parts and repair defects and damage to the works caused by such defects during a defined period of time, the Defects Liability Period.  If the defects discovered or damaged caused by such defects during this period are successfully repaired or made good, this constitutes the whole of the Contractor's liability.  If the defects are not successfully repaired, several remedies are open to the Employer, among them termination of the Contract.  The characteristic feature is, however, that the Contractor's liability for defects is limited to, and dependent upon, his being able to repair the defects."  [Emphasis added].

Under the three 1999 Books for major works, the Contractor's liability after the Defects Notification Period is not excluded as was the case under the Yellow Book, 3rd Edition.  Under the 1999 Books, the Contractor remains liable for the relevant period of the statute of limitations or period of prescription (which may be e anything up to 30 years, as in France).

I think we overlooked this special requirement for Plant contracts when we prepared the 1999 Books because all of us (except Hermann Bayerlein, who is not a lawyer) were much more familiar with civil work contracts than with Plant contracts.  Accordingly, at least in my case, until the FIDIC Guide to the 1999 Books was prepared, I had not realized that we needed different provisions limiting the Contractor's liability where Plant or substantial electrical and mechanical works are concerned.

Accordingly, I believe that when we update the Yellow and Silver Books, we should be looking to incorporating the kinds of solutions that were contained in the Yellow Book, 3rd Edition.  It is clear that the authors of the Yellow Book, 3rd Edition, understood very well the particular needs and requirements of a supplier of electrical and mechanical works.

I would be interested to hear if any members of the Contrcats Committee have any comments to make upon the foregoing.

Finally, at the CC meeting, we discussed the idea of possibly including a "hardship clause" in the DBO form given that a DBO contract may be operative with basically the same prices during a 20-year operation period.  To assist thinking on this, I am sending a chapter dealing with "Hardship Clauses" from a recent book entitled "Drafting International Contracts" by Marcel Fontaine and Filip De Ly, which includes numerous examples of such clauses and which is perhaps the best work on this subject.

17.06 ALL: Limitation of LiabilityuseradminApproved
Liability cap

As you know, the second paragraph of Sub-Clause 17.6 provides that: "[T]he total liability of the Contractor to the Employer, under or in connection with the Contract other than under [specify Sub-Clauses] shall not exceed the sum stated in the Particular Conditions or [if a sum is not so stated] the accepted Contract Amount."

This cap (albeit with exceptions) on the Contractor's liability to the Employer "under or in connection with the Contract" is much too broad.  The cap should be restricted to covering the Contractor's liability to the Employer for breach of contract and not any liability to the Employer under or in connection with the Contract as this could encompass even the ordinary performance by the Contractor of his contractual obligations to the Employer (such as the performance of an instructed variation, or of a remedial work during the Defects Notification Period), which was surely never intended.

Accordingly, the cap on liability provided for in the second paragraph of Sub-Clause 17.6 of all three Books needs to be limited to cases of breach of contract by the Contractor.

17.06 ALL: Limitation of LiabilityuseradminApproved
Insurance against Injury to Persons
Insurance against Injury to Persons and Damage to Property (TPL) second para - which is quote: "This insurance shall be for a limit per occurrence of not less than  the amount  stated in the Appendix to Tender, with no limit on the number of  occurences.  If an amount is not stated in the Appendix to Tender, this Sub-Clause shall not apply." I think it would be of essence that you should work with an insurance  expert on this subject as we learnt from some previous experience that this requirement is causing serious problems for most insurance companies (even those representing the  'standard insurerers' for our company) to insure with no limit on the number of occurences....... Normally insurances cannot estimate the premium on this requirement  - the worst  case scenario would be a daily occurance exceeding even the contract value.....?
18.03 ALL: Insurance against Injury to Persons and Damage to PropertyuseradminApproved
BodyFilterRepliesApprover CommentsFilter
Expand/Collapse Category17.06 ALL: Limitation of Liability ‎(3)
Expand/Collapse Category18.03 ALL: Insurance against Injury to Persons and Damage to Property ‎(1)
Expand/Collapse Category20.01 ALL: Contractor's Claims ‎(2)
Expand/Collapse Category20.02 ALL: Appointment of the Dispute Adjudication Board ‎(3)
International Federation of Consulting Engineers
Box 311 - CH-1215 Geneva 15 - Switzerland
Tl +41-22-799 49 05 - Fx +41-22-799 49 01 - fidic@fidic.org - FIDIC.org