Archive for the ‘Andy’s Blog’ Category

Do the Sanctions Against Qatar Qualify as Force Majeure?

Depending on where you are in the World, you may or may not be aware that certain political sanctions were recently imposed against Qatar by Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Diplomatic ties have been severed and an embargo on all land, air and sea connections between these countries and Qatar has been put in place.

Given the fact that Qatar is very busy constructing a number of projects in preparation for the FIFA World Cup in 2022, it’s unsurprising that we have had some requests for advice from contractors whose operations in Qatar have been affected by the sanctions and are who are looking for a means of claiming extensions of time and/or damages. Most of the queries are along the lines of: are claims eligible under the FIDIC provisions of force majeure?

(more…)

Continue reading

How to Deal with Delay Caused by a Nominated Subcontractor

nominated subcontractor

Many years ago when I used to deal with the JCT forms of contract, if a nominated subcontractor delayed the works, the contractor could use this as a legitimate reason to claim an extension of time. Either things have either changed since then, or not all forms of contract take this view.

Under the FIDIC Red Book form of contract, the Engineer may appoint a nominated subcontractor, but once the Contractor has accepted the nomination, he becomes responsible for the actions of the subcontractor and may not claim for any failures of the subcontractor.

In a situation where the Engineer nominates a subcontractor who has submitted a competitive price but is incapable of providing adequate performance (does this sound familiar at all?) it seems inequitable to make the Contractor responsible when he has had nothing to do with the selection of the subcontractor. Does the Contractor have any recourse in such a scenario? Well, sort of, as we will see.

(more…)

Continue reading

CEES | The Secret of How to Produce a Successful Claim

In this blog I am going to share one of the secrets that we teach on our courses to help our students and attendees produce successful claims. If you are not already applying these principles, I guarantee that they will make a massive difference to your claims and to whether they will be accepted and, resolved in a timely manner.

Let’s first take a moment to think about what a claim actually is. My definition of a claim is “something that comprises an assertion of a party’s right under the terms of a contract or at law”. In other words, we are simply asking for something to which we are entitled. (more…)

Continue reading

How to Calculate the Recovery of Preliminaries on a Reduced Scope of Works

I was recently contacted by a blog reader who requested some advice on a project in Qatar where the Employer omitted a large part of the Works and also wanted to deduct money from the Contractor’s preliminaries as part of the price adjustment.

A
I thought that this would make an interesting case to share with the rest of our readers so, the scenario was as follows:

The Contract Price is a Fixed Price Lump Sum.

The Contract Bill of Quantities contains all-inclusive rates which include preliminaries, overheads and profit. No separate prices for preliminaries are included.

After approximately 75% of the works were completed the Employer omitted a large portion of the balance works, which will not be completed by others. (more…)

Continue reading

How to Make Sure Your Claims are Accepted

If you wish to ensure that your claims are accepted, you need to bear in mind EC Harris’ (now ARCADIS) report Global Construction Disputes Report. This report cites incomplete and/or unsubstantiated claims as one of the major reasons for construction industry disputes.

A typical scenario that I have experienced on many occasions is when a contractor submits a badly prepared or ‘inadequately expressed’ claim to the engineer for evaluation and the engineer rejects the claim on the basis that the contractor has not proved his case. The engineer is quite correct to do this, because the onus is on the claimant to prove that the claim is just and in such a case, the Contractor has not done so. The Contractor, however, believing that he has good basis for the claim, then refers the matter as a dispute. (more…)

Continue reading