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%. 


Construction contract FIDIC 2017 notice of claim

How Does FIDIC 2017 Affect Claims?

I guess like many of you, I have not had the opportunity to examine the 2017 editions of the FIDIC contracts in much detail, because as yet, I have not come across any projects that are using them. This situation will, however, gradually change. As it does, we will need to know what has changed and how it has changed. As such projects reach final account stage there will undoubtedly be claims to resolve and disputes to settle. I have recently been doing research for a forthcoming book, so thought it would be worthwhile to highlight the changes from a claims perspective.

Employer's Claims

Read more


interim claims

How to Manage and Minimise the Submission of Spurious Claims

The Claims Class blog has attracted loyal readers over the years. We get lots of comments as well as questions on issues that our readers are dealing with on their projects. And this often gives me inspiration for new articles. A reader recently told us that he spent a lot of time dealing with inadequate claims. He asked how he could effectively manage and minimise the submission of spurious contractor's claims. So here are my thoughts...

Consultants need to spend a lot of time and effort to manage and respond to contractor's claims. So it's worth making sure that you spend this time working on justifiable claims. Don't waste time reviewing and responding to claims where the contractor has no entitlement, or to those that lack submission in an appropriate manner.

Remember that the onus is on the claimant to prove the case. Most contracts require consultants toRead more


construction claims responses and determinations, changes in legislation

The Engineer's Responses and Determinations: What Should be Included?

Earlier this year I presented a CPD talk to RICS members in Dubai on the topic of Engineer’s Responses and Determinations. I usually like to kick things of with a poll and I asked the group the following questions:

How many people have experienced a situation where the Engineer does not respond to a claim within the contractual time-frame? Almost everyone confirmed that they had.

How many people have experienced a situation where the Engineer’s response has done little to resolve the claim? Again, almost everyone confirmed that they had.

How many people have experienced a situation where the Engineer’s response has caused the matter to escalate to a dispute? Over 50% of attendees confirmed that they had.

How many think that failures of the Engineer to carry out their contractual obligations on claims is helpful to projects? No one thought that this helped projects.

This is clear feedback from RICS members that the Engineers often do not perform their obligations. This has a detrimental effect on projects.

So, what should Engineers be doing to help projects when responding to claims? Well, as usual, the contract provides the answers, so let’s have a look at what the FIDIC Red Book has to say on the subject.Read more


Determinations, Rocks and Hard Places

Most form of contract oblige the consultant responsible for determining the contractor’s claims (the Architect, Engineer or Contract Administrator), to make a fair and reasonable award or decision in accordance with the contract.Read more


Responses, Determinations and Decisions

Our Claims Class 2-day Intensive Training Course in London was slightly unusual in that the balance of the delegates was significantly weighted towards the client’s side and also included an arbitrator and an adjudicator.  These particular delegates were obviously interested in learning how claims should be responded to and in the case of the arbitrator and adjudicator, how decisions should be presented.Read more