FIDIC 2017: What You Need to Know Now

It is now 5 years since the FIDIC 2017 editions of the Red, Yellow and Silver Books were published. As anticipated, it’s taking the industry some time to get on board and adopt these latest editions on projects.

Change Can Be Uncomfortable....But it's Inevitable

Nobody likes change. Employers and engineers are no different. It can be uncomfortable and it takes time and effort to take effect. But, as time moves on more and more projects will move to the FIDIC 2017 editions and it's critical that project teams understand these contracts.

I also suspect that some engineers will resist the new contracts and will not recommend them to Employers. Why? Because the Engineer now has more obligations. There are also many provisions which provide consequences for the Engineer if they do not comply with their obligations.

Nevertheless, change is inevitable. This means that those involved in project management and contract administration need to know what changes were introduced in 2017 to ensure effective administration and most importantly, to ensure that parties meet their obligations.

Changes Summarised:

The following is a summary of the changes made in the 2017 Editions:

  • The Red Book now has 106 pages of General Conditions as opposed to the 1999 Edition, which had 62 pages. The Yellow and Silver books are similarly increased. The increased volume is said to be to bring greater clarity and include more procedures to be followed as a matter of contract.
  • The word “Claim” is defined as ‘a request or assertion by either Party to the other Party for an entitlement of relief under any Clause of these Conditions or otherwise in connection with, or arising out of, the Contract or the execution of the Works.
  • There is a provision to include a percentage in the Contract Data (formerly the Appendix to Tender) for profit and if no percentage is stated, the percentage shall be 5%.
  • The term “No-objection” is introduced and defined.
  • “Notice” is defined as ‘a written communication identified as a Notice and issued in accordance with Sub-Clause 1.3 (Notices and Other Communications)’.
  • There are many more requirements for the parties to submit Notices.
  • A Notice of Dissatisfaction may be issued by either Party if dissatisfied with an Engineer’s determination.
  • There are more detailed requirements for the Contractor’s Programmes, including programmes to show actual progress.
  • A provision is included for including rules and procedures to deal with concurrent delay.
  • Advance warning provisions have been included.
  • The procedures for evaluating and agreeing Variations are more prescriptive.
  • The type of events previously included under Employer’s Risks and Force Majeure clauses have been consolidated into a single clause – Exceptional Events.
  • Both Employer’s and Contractor’s Claims are now dealt with under Clause 20 (Employer’s and Contractor’s Claims).
  • The provisions of dealing with disputes are separated into a new Clause 21 (Disputes and Arbitration) to reflect the fact that claims only become disputes if a Party gives a Notice of a dispute.
  • Specific provisions of the requirements of a claim submission are included under Sub-Clause 20.2.4 (Fully detailed Claim).
  • Under Sub-Clause 20.2.4 (Fully detailed Claim), the claim submission period is extended from 42 days to 84 days, but submission is now a condition precedent to entitlement.
  • Under Sub-Clause 3.7 (Agreement or Determination), if the Engineer does not give Notice of agreement of rejection of a claim within 42 days, the Engineer shall be deemed to have given a Notice rejecting the claim.
  • The Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) is now referred to as the Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB). This reflects enhanced requirements for the DAAB to be proactive in dispute avoidance.
  • All DAABs are standing boards.
  • There are many more ‘deeming’ provisions whereby if a Party does not act in accordance with an obligation, then the provisions will state that a specific action is deemed to have taken place.

More Work?

From this, you may think that the new forms of contract require substantially more contract administration than in 1999. But in my opinion, this is not really the case. If we look at Arcadis and HKA’s annual reports on disputes in recent years, major causes of disputes are:

  1. Failure of the Parties to comply with their contractual obligations.
  2. Failure to administer the contract correctly.
  3. Lack of adequately trained and qualified contract administration staff.

This illustrates that project staff did not understand the contract and failed to administer it as FIDIC intended in 1999. To try to address these failings, FIDIC 2017 has more prescriptive procedures. It also introduces more consequences for failing to carry out obligations. Consequently, the new editions do not require significantly more contract administration than the previous editions. Subject to the proviso - if the previous editions had been administered properly and efficiently.

Contractors, employers and engineers who think that they can continue to staff projects with inadequately trained and experienced staff will soon find out that they are mistaken. It will hurt them financially. This will be especially acute, if the companies on the other side of the fence have taken steps to ensure their staff understand the new editions.

The 2017 editions of FIDIC place much more emphasis on and have stricter requirements for notices. Our book on the subject provides a valuable guide. It is available in Kindle, paperback, and hardback from Amazon.

Want to learn more about FIDIC 2017 and the differences from the 1999 editions? Starting 12th October, join us for our NEW live online course - FIDIC 2017 vs 1999: What's Changed?  Sign up before 7th September to save 25%. 


Justice - Avoiding Disputes and Claims

How To Avoid Disputes From the Outset

Hewitt Decipher Partnership recently presented a webinar on international arbitration. Panel members included a barrister, an arbitrator and a solicitor. They were joined by HDP employees who provide expert advice to legal professionals working on construction disputes. The aim was to look at how to avoid claims.

Whilst these professionals earn fees from disputes, the overwhelming consensus was that the best way to deal with disputes is to not have them in the first place.

So, what can we do to avoid disputes right from the start of the project?

Read more


The Difference Between Claim and Dispute Submissions - FIDIC Omissions

The Difference Between A Claim to the Engineer & A Claim in Arbitration?

A student recently asked, "is there any difference between a claim submitted to the Engineer and one submitted for arbitration?" My response was along the lines of “Yes, there frequently is, but there shouldn’t be”.

The Scenario:

Let me explain why by describing a very frequent scenario related to claims.

Read more


final account disputes

Why do Final Accounts lead to Disputes?

I recently provided advice on a dispute of US$250M. This sum includes variations, prolongation costs, acceleration costs, disruption costs and delay penalties. The dispute crystalised when the contractor submitted his final account. This is a familiar occurrence. In fact, a large proportion of disputes occur when the project is either nearing or after completion.

Read more


Construction and Contract News 2019

We are looking ahead to 2020 and back on the past year. What has changed and what should we be looking out for in the world of construction contract and claims? We take a look in this round-up of construction and contract news from around the world…

Read more


Construction contract FIDIC 2017 notice of claim

How to Ensure you Avoid Costly and Time-Consuming Disputes on your Projects

We all want to avoid disputes on our construction projects. But it seems we fail to learn from lessons of the past. ARCADIS have just published their annual Global Construction Disputes Report 2019. It makes interesting, but, not altogether surprising reading.

This year, the top three reasons for disputes are:

  1. Owner/Contractor/Subcontractor failing to understand and/or comply with its contractual obligations;
  2. Errors and/or omissions in the contract document;
  3. Failure to properly administer the contract.

Some other interesting noteworthy observations are:Read more


How to Ensure a DAB is Formed Correctly

A blog subscriber recently asked for some advice on the setting up and organisation of a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB). They specifically wanted to know what to do if one of the parties is trying to frustrate the procedure by refusing to agree to the appointment of the DAB. The following advice is relates to the FIDIC contracts. However, it may be equally applied to other forms of contract that have dispute board provisions.

Read more


Inadequately Expressed Claims: the second most frequent reason for disputes

ARCADIS have recently published their Global Construction Dispute Report 2018 and unsurprisingly “Poorly drafted or incomplete/unsubstantiated claims” is reported as the second most frequent reason for disputes. This annual report has consistently ranked the same reason highly for several years, so it seems that the industry is not learning the fact that the onus is on the claimant to properly prove his case and that failure to do so will be costly and time-consuming.Read more


Delay analysis methods

Delay: Choosing the right method for your dispute

How should you analyse delay? Which delay analysis method is best? What options are available?

When a delay occurs on a project, analysing cause and effect is vital to understanding where liability lies. Delay analysis (sometimes called Forensic Planning) is something which some refer to as a ‘dark art’. Arguably because it’s often misunderstood by those who carry it out or claim to understand it. This article aims to set out some of the key elements to consider when undertaking an analysis or working with an analyst to demonstrate delay.Read more


New Top Tips Paper! Application of Dispute Boards on Construction Projects

Most contracts have provisions whereby the Engineer, or his equivalent under other forms of contract, is required to make a fair determination of the claim. They also include a requirement that the parties attempt to reach amicable agreement in situations where either party does not accept the Engineer’s determination. Read more