Impediment, delay and prevention - FIDIC

Student’s Questions – FIDIC Information, Delay and Prevention

One of the modules on our e-courses requires the students to review various case studies to identify potential claims. Having identified the claims, the student is required to explain the reasons for the claim and what may be claimed. We examine the contractual clauses under the FIDIC Red Book that provide entitlement and explain how the claim would be evaluated. Having completed the module, one student posed certain questions. These were particularly around information and clause 8.4 on delay, impediment or prevention, which I think are worth repeating here.

QUESTION: Could Sub-Clause 1.9 be used against RFIs (requests for information), shop drawings, material submittals, or any sort of instruction / information?

Sub-Clause 1.9 (Delayed Drawings or Instructions) provides that, ‘The Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer whenever the Works are likely to be delayed or disrupted if an necessary drawing or instruction is not issued … within a particular time’. The sub-clause allows the Contractor to claim ‘If the Contractor suffers delay and/or incurs cost as a result of a failure of the Engineer to issue the notified drawing or instruction within a time that is reasonable and is specified on the notice ‘

Requests for information must fall under this definition. However, I would advocate that good contract administration requires that the Contractor ensures:

  1. That the request firstly contains a date by which the information is required – and secondly,
  2. Stipulates that the request is submitted as a Sub-Clause 1.9 notice.

If standard forms are used, this information may be easily incorporated.

Submittals which require approvals from the Engineer must also fall under this category. The Contractor may not proceed without such approval. Again, I would suggest the document that encloses the submittal should include a date and a reference to sub-clause 1.9.

Take a scenario where the documents do not contain these references and a claim later relies on them. The Engineer may argue the request or submittal did not comply with the notice requirements of sub-clause 1.9. At that point the Engineer can reject the claim. It would be possible to counter this argument. But, as is the case with anything to do with notices, it is always better to ensure that they are submitted in accordance with the Contract.

QUESTION:  Would Sub-Clause 8.4(e) apply for the Engineer’s action?

Sub-Clause 8.4 (Extension of Time of Completion), subsection (e) provides that the Contractor is entitled to an extension of time caused by ‘any delay, impediment or prevention caused by or attributable to the Employer, the Employer’s Personnel, or the Employer’s other contractors on the Site’. This is a great catch-all clause that may be applied to many situations on the average project. ‘Delay, impediment or prevention’ may certainly be used if the Engineer delays the Contractor by not responding to requests for information or submittals in a timely manner. It may help in a situation where the Engineer does not provide a meaningful response or unreasonably rejects submittals. Note however, that Sub-Clause 8.4 on delay, impediment or prevention only allows an award of time. It does not provide for costs to be reimbursed.

Do you have any questions on specific clauses on the FIDIC Red Book? Comment below.

For more on our range of online training courses on FIDIC and Claims, click here.