Contract Administration

Contract Administration

The ‘notices’ provision

by Dennis Brand
Many of you will deal with industry-standard form contracts, while others will deal with company standard or even bespoke forms; whatever the form of contract, the notices provision contained in the conditions of contract is probably one of the least-read provisions. The notices provision does not attract the same degree of interest as, say, the variation or change order provisions, or provisions which deal with certificates of completion, suspension or even termination, but in each case a notice is required.

Let me be clear: a notice provision in a contract is not the same as where a contract includes the term ‘notify’; a requirement that one party must inform the other of a thing or matter. A notice provision is where the contract includes the term ‘shall give notice’ (or something similar), which usually requires a formal written notice to be issued by one party and delivered to the other.

For example, a ‘Notice to Proceed’ is a formal notice issued under many forms of industry-standard contracts. The issue of a ‘Notice to Proceed’ is the confirmation that the contractor or supplier of a service is to start work. To proceed on the basis of simply being notified, which could be a phonecall or even a text message, without a formal notice in writing, would be risky in the extreme for the contractor or supplier.

From the employer’s side, such a notice is equally important because, by issuing the formal ‘Notice to Proceed’, he knows that, regardless of what discussions or communications he may have had with the contractor or supplier, they will only start work, and thereby incur cost to his account, once the employer has issued the ‘Notice to Proceed’, and not before.

When one is involved in the preparation of a contract and the subject of the notices provision is to be addressed, there are really six points or matters to be considered:

1. How many days?

The first thing is that the period of notice should be expressed in days rather than weeks. Notice periods will differ depending upon the reason for the notice. When determining the number of days, the period should be reasonable, not too long and not too short, and must be workable. Many contracts contain provisions that, where a contractor seeks additional money or a variation, the contractor must give notice within a limited number of days following the event which resulted in the request. Some contracts go further and provide that, if the notice is not given within the specified time, the contractor loses his right to claim a variation. You may think this pretty harsh, and indeed it is not one that courts or arbitrators like to enforce, but if the period for the notice is reasonable, the contractor should not have any difficulty in complying with it.

2. In what form?

There is no standard form for a notice. The important thing to bear in mind is that it is a standalone document which advises the other party of something or requires the other party to do something. It should contain all the relevant information, including reference to the provision of the contract and relevant clause, so the recipient can be under no misapprehension as to the purpose of the notice and what is required. For example, FIDIC requires that, in the event of a dispute which is referred to the engineer for a decision, the notice must provide a description of the dispute and confirmation that a decision of the engineer under the relevant clause is required. Failure to give that information will likely mean that the notice is considered invalid.

3. Who should sign them?

Due to the importance of a contractual notice, it should only be signed by someone in authority. Rarely will the contract state who should sign the notice. Therefore it should be signed by the same person who signs all other contract correspondence, such as the contractor’s or employer’s nominated representative.

4. To whom should they be sent?

Due to the importance of such a notice, it is important it is brought to the attention of the senior management of the contractor or employer. However, for those large organisations where the head office might be in another country, a notice sent to the head office will not be acted upon at site level until it has been received and site management informed. In order to avoid attendant problems, it is not unusual to see a notice provision which requires the notice to be addressed to a named individual in the head office, with a copy sent to the project manager on-site. I have seen this put to good effect where the employer, who was not getting the required action from the site, issuing a notice, which required the original to be sent to the head office.

5. How should they be delivered?

Usually a notice provision provides for notices to be delivered by one of three methods: by hand, by mail or by fax. To deliver a notice by hand means exactly what is says; it also includes delivery by courier. To include a provision allowing the delivery of a notice by mail, consideration must be given to the delivery point, which could be another country. Often a number of days are added in case of delay, with an overall number of days agreed upon when delivery will be considered as having taken place. For delivery by fax, the sender’s fax report confirms the delivery.

6. Is an acknowledgement needed?

In my view never … that simply invites problems!

CW

Contract Administration

PPP PROJECTS IN BRAZIL: OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES

by Júlio César Bueno

Federal Law No. 11079, 2004 [PPP LAW] instituted the general rules for bidding and contracting of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) within the realm of public administration. This is an important volley in the Brazilian government efforts to develop funding and management alternatives for public works in furtherance of the bidding system instituted by the Federal Law No. 8666, 1993 [Brazilian BIDDING LAW] and to reduce the state presence in the Brazilian economy. …

Contract Administration

FIDIC 1999 VS FIDIC 1987

By Edward Sunna

What You Need To Know and Why?
The private sector in the UAE and more recently the public sector in Abu Dhabi, have adopted FIDIC or at least a hybrid version of FIDIC for government use. This was done in part to reduce the risk of international contracting, but more importantly, to standardise terms of engagement to reduce uncertainty caused by the application and interplay of Federal Laws and the various Laws of the Emirates, in so far as they are applicable to construction contracts.

Contract Administration

Procurement trends in the Gulf

by Sachin Kerur

Despite the challenging world economic conditions, the Gulf looks set to remain one of the most significant global construction markets.

It is true that there has been a collapse in demand regionally for the large, private developments and indeed it seems the speculative real estate market may be a thing of the past. This has led to a severe cooling off in the Gulf construction market that was in any case overheating towards the middle of last year. At the same time this has led to a decline in input construction prices. This means that if a developer is sure there is a market for a development, the project becomes economically more viable. Not every developer will be able to take advantage of the decline in costs because bank lending remains tight. However governments will be encouraged to procure faster to take advantage of a cheaper cost market and spend more on major infrastructure projects. Certainly the Gulf power, water, health, education road and bridge sectors are expected to receive major boosts in development spending.

Whilst the menu of project delivery methods has evolved in many directions over the last few decades globally, the Middle East tended to remain wedded to traditional methods of procuring works and services. However during the last couple of years there has been a trend towards greater collaborative working between employers and contractors and the enhanced efficiency of the procurement process. A number of significant projects in the region were awarded on the basis of turnkey arrangements that accounted for fluctuations in price and incidental project costs. With so many projects on offer, contractors were spoiled for choice and were starting to demand more progressive contract terms.

Another noticeable regional trend was contracts procured on a “best value” principle. What this means in practice is that the project is geared towards delivering a high quality, cost effective scheme through an open book method of procurement. Depending upon who you speak to, open book procurement can mean the usual adversarial culture of the traditional method of procurement but the consequential cost implications can to some extent be avoided through a partnership approach.

Other trends that began to emerge over the last couple of years in the Gulf were sustainable procurement policies, e-procurement and management contracting for the procurement of infrastructure management services.

However with the amount of projects on offer declining abruptly, we have already seen a swift return to traditional methods of competitive procurement using fixed price lump sum turnkey contracts to ensure negligible cost overruns. The concern of many contractors is that we are back to what they see as the bad old days of onerous contract conditions where the lowest priced bidder always takes the spoils.

There is little doubt that the scale of construction projects in the region led to more innovative procurement and contracting policies than had ever been seen before. We will have to wait and see whether progressive and non-adversarial techniques will survive in this market.

kluwerconstructionblog

Construction Law, Contract Administration

How subcontractors can get paid

One of the critical but not “headline making” aspects of the downturn in the construction industry is that many subcontractors are having difficulty getting paid on projects and meeting their own debts as they fall due.

The subcontractor is usually dependent on the contractor being paid under the main contract. One often sees a “pay when paid” clause in subcontract which essentially means that the subcontractor will not be paid by the contractor until the contractor has been paid for the subcontractor’s work by the employer. This necessarily involves even in the best case scenario a longer credit period to the contractor than the contractor in turn gives to the employer. The subcontractor generally has little input in to the certification process by the employer’s advisor prior to him or her approving an invoice in favour of the contractor. …

Construction Law, Contract Administration

FIDIC’S FOUR NEW STANDARD FORMS OF CONTRACT: Risks, Force Majeure and Termination

 By Christopher R. Seppala

I propose briefly to discuss five topics in the three new Books for major works (the new Construction Contract, the Plant Contract and the EPC Contract), as follows:

 (1) Contractor’s risk and “Employer’s Risks”,

(2) Indemnities,

(3) Limitation of Liability,

(4) The New Force Majeure Clause, and

(5) Grounds and Procedure for Termination of the Contract by the Employer and the Contractor. …

Construction Law, Contract Administration

Making Demands on Advance Payment Guarantees and Performance Bonds: The Test to Secure Summary Judgment on a Claim before the English Court

by Karen Gough

We are in the midst of a world-wide recession. So, in times when contractors’ liquidity and therefore their very survival is more at risk than usual, and employers are more than usually jittery about the ability of contractors to complete works, a recent decision on a claim to enforce an advance payment guarantee and a performance bonds is of particular interest to construction law practitioners. …

Construction Law, Contract Administration

Are lawyers ready to leave their comfort zones to set the world’s infrastructure projects on the right track?

by Martin Harman

I have just returned from a family holiday in India, our first visit together although I am a frequent business traveller there. Apart from the beauty and vibrancy of the country and its people, what struck me most was that when travelling on business one is so very removed from the real life of the people of the country. I spend a large part of my time working as an international legal counsel to Indian law firms and Indian corporates who are at the forefront of the delivery of India’s infrastructure vision, a vision that requires, as just one example, the delivery of 20 kilometres of road every day over the next few years. For the business traveller, whose main transport experience is a journey from hotel to office, the scale of the infrastructure deficit begins to come into focus but as a tourist traveller, it looms extremely large. …

Contract Administration

Tests on Completion under the FIDIC Yellow Book

by Sarah Thomas

I am a contractor working on a wastewater project in Eastern Europe, using the FIDIC Yellow Book –Design & Build. Vol.3 of our contract contains the following clause:

Tests on Completion

The test on completion duration shall be 90 days.

The first 30 days shall be a monitoring period during which the Contractor sets up the operation of the plant and conducts his own water quality tests to confirm that the final effluent consent has been met. At the end of this period the Contractor shall notify the Engineer that the plant is complete and meeting the Process Guarantee which then shall be met by a further 30 consecutive days before Taking Over can take place.”

We have met the final 30 consecutive days successfully and want taking over. The Employer says we must complete the 90 days which takes us outside of the construction period and hence delay damages are being threatened.

I say we have satisfied the contract at the end of the 30 consecutive days and we should get Take Over even though it is not 90 days.

Have you any idea if we are right in our assessment?

Answer:
Firstly, a couple of brief provisos. I assume that you have made no amendments to the Yellow Book that affect this issue. I’m also assuming that, as you say, otherwise the works have indeed all been completed in accordance with the Contract.

Have the Tests on Completion been passed and are the Works ready for Taking Over?

Obviously your argument is that having satisfied the first 30 day monitoring period and then completed the further 30 consecutive day period and having notified the Engineer that the plant is complete and meeting the Process Guarantee, you have therefore satisfied the requirements for completion and Take Over.

Clause 10 – which deals with Taking Over – says that the Works must have been completed in accordance with the Contract and that a Taking-Over Certificate must have been issued. The Employer must issue such certificate within 28 days of an application if the Works are substantially complete in accordance with the Contract (i.e. apart from minor outstanding work and defects not substantially affecting the Works); otherwise the certificate is deemed to have been issued.

Crucially, “completion” for these purposes includes:

• achieving the passing of the Tests on Completion; and
• “completing all work which is stated in the Contract as being required for the Works to be considered completed for the purposes of taking over”.

So it all comes down to (1) what is required to achieve passing of the Tests on Completion and (2) what the Contract states needs to be completed to achieve take over.

Under the Yellow Book, “Tests on Completion” means “those tests which are specified in the Contract or agreed by both Parties…and which are carried out under Clause 9 [Tests on Completion] before the Works…are taken over by the Employer”.

Clause 9 goes on to spell out the process for carrying out these tests, which falls into 3 stages – pre-commissioning tests, commissioning tests and trail operation – the latter which is intended to show that the plant is operating reliably.

Ambiguous provisions

I think that the Engineer/Employer will forcefully argue that waiting for the 90th day to elapse is part of the “trial operation” and is required for you to pass the Tests on Completion. I agree that there is some ambiguity in the wording in Volume 3 of the Contract as it states: “At the end of this period the Contractor shall notify the Engineer that the plant is complete and meeting the Process Guarantee which then shall be met by a further 30 consecutive days before Taking Over can take place.” However, my own view is that the drafting of the full testing period is clear and explicit – “The test on completion duration shall be 90 days“. Bearing in mind that FIDIC explicitly states “The documents forming the Contract are to be taken as mutually explanatory of one another” I do not think that this wording is actually inconsistent with the words: “which then shall be met by a further 30 consecutive days before Taking Over can take place”. In my view, all the Contract is saying is that the actual commissioning tests period is 30 days but there is then a further 30 day trial operation period to ensure the plant is operating reliably. This is also consistent with the description of Tests on Completion (and the 3 stages) described in Clause 9.1.
Of course, it is open to you to request clarification on this point from the Engineer. Clause 1.5.2 of the General Conditions provides that: “If an ambiguity or discrepancy is found in the documents, the Engineer shall issue any necessary clarification or instruction.”

You do not mention if the Engineer in this case is an independent engineer or is part of the Employer organisation. Whichever is the case, he may well come to the same view as the Employer and, in my opinion, this would be consistent with:

• the express wording (”The test on completion duration shall be 90 days“);
• interpreting the documents as mutually explanatory of each other; and
• the 3 stage process of Tests on Completion which includes a “trial operation”.

Whether or not the Engineer is truly independent, Clause 3.5 applies when a party asks the Engineer for clarification and provides that he must consult with each party in an endeavour to reach agreement. If agreement is not reached, “the Engineer shall make a fair determination in accordance with the Contract, taking due regard of all relevant circumstances.”

The Engineer must give notice to both parties of the determination with supporting particulars. Each Party shall give effect to each agreement or determination unless and until revised under Clause 20 (Claims, Disputes and Arbitration).

What do you do now?

Whilst I think that the correct interpretation is that the testing period is the full 90 days, I am conscious that complying with this period will put you in delay and at risk of liquidated damages for delay. Therefore in practical terms, I think that you should at least make the argument that you have already substantially completed. I think that there is sufficient ambiguity in the Volume 3 wording to argue that the Tests on Completion have been completed and that you are entitled to issue of the Taking-Over Certificate. Therefore you should apply for issue of this certificate if you haven’t already done so (although if you haven’t already done so you will still have to wait at least 28 days before the Engineer is obliged to issue the certificate or you can argue that it is deemed to be issued).

Under Clause 10.1 [Taking Over of the Works and Sections], the Engineer is deemed to have issued a Taking Over Certificate if he fails either to issue a TO Certificate or rejects the Contractor’s application for a TO Certificate within a period of 28 days after receiving the Contractor’s application.

You have not said whether or not the Engineer has rejected the application. If he has not, and more than 28 days has elapsed since you issued it, then the TO Certificate will be deemed to have been issued on the last day of the 28-day period.

Of course, if you applied for the TO Certificate right before the end of the 30+30 days, then the Engineer has up to 28 days to issue or reject, and you are almost in the same position as if your completion test phase was 90 days. If you applied substantially earlier than that then it will make a bigger difference and might be the difference between completing on time or late.

If you are late, then there probably is no harm in making the application for a Taking-Over Certificate. Note that in accordance with Clause 10.1.3(b) of the General Conditions, if the Engineer wishes to reject the application, he has to give reasons and specify the work that is required to be done by the Contractor to enable the TO Certificate to be issued. Even if the Engineer has purported to reject your application, you might be able to argue that he has not done so in accordance with the contract, because he has not specified the work that is required to be done in order to enable the TO Certificate to be issued. Of course in my view, he is likely to simply point to the further 30 day trail operation period under the Contract.

Delay to Testing

Whilst I do not think you have a basis of claim (as my interpretation of the Contract is that you have not yet fully passed the Tests on Completion), if the Employer’s insistence on you waiting until the end of 90 days after the start of the testing period is not permitted under the Contract, there is potentially the right to claim for delay. Clause 7.4.5 provides that “If the Contractor suffers delay and/or incurs Cost … as a result of a delay for which the Employer is responsible, the Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer and shall be entitled to claim both an extension of time and “payment of any such Cost plus reasonable profit, which shall be included in the Contract Price” (Clause 7.4.5(b)). Equally there is the ground in Clause 8.4.1 (e), being “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.” The Employer’s Personnel, as defined, includes the Engineer.

Any right to claim will be subject to strict compliance with FIDIC’s notice provisions in Sub-Clause 20.1 (Contractor’s Claims)). I have previously stressed the importance of getting your notice exactly right in the previous Q&A; click here to read more. After receiving this notice, the Engineer shall proceed in accordance with Sub-Clause 3.5 (Determinations) (see above) to agree or determine these matters.

One final note

Finally, do you have any minutes or notes of any discussions with the Employer about completion testing? If you do, have a look at them to see whether they clarify the position. Obviously it will be helpful if you have evidence that you and the Employer intended the tests to consist of the 30-day monitoring period plus the second consecutive 30-day period only. It is worth noting that FIDIC Yellow Book does not include an “entire agreement” clause precluding extra contractual documents/negotiations in interpreting the Contract. If you have clear evidence that the parties both intended the completion tests to last for 30 days plus 30 days (only) then you may be able to claim successfully that the figure 90 was inserted into the contract by mistake instead of 60, in the event that the dispute goes to arbitration.

 

Kluwer Construction Blog

Construction Law, Contract Administration

Contractual Easter Eggs

by John Bishop

Monday was a public holiday in China, to celebrate Qing Ming, the Chinese tomb-sweeping festival which also happily coincided with Easter. I spent some time explaining to my Chinese friends the Easter story, and how in recent times there have been other interpretations involving bunnies and chocolate eggs.

China has been busy hatching some of its own contractual eggs by taking FIDIC standard forms traditionally used by International Contractors in their overseas projects, and adapted to reflect local conditions and times.

The FIDIC Silver Book has been considered by the the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (”MOHURD”) to promote the EPC contracting model in China. A draft MOHURD standard form was prepared with reference to FIDIC Silver Book and international engineering contracting practices, and released for public comments at the end of 2009. This adaptation by MOHURD appears to have been partly influenced by the GF-1999-0201, a standard form widely used in China, mostly for government financed projects using procurement methods such as competitive bidding.

The resulting risk allocations have turned out quite different from the original “turnkey” nature of the FIDIC Silver Book that may come as a bit of a surprise to those used to EPC contracts. Owners and developers may not get quite the turnkey solution they were expecting in relation to matters such as responsibility for information as to underground conditions and site obstructions, the obligation to obtain approvals, permits and licenses and especially in relation to site safety. It will be of great interest for the construction sector to see how the Chinese EPC form of contract, when finally issued, in fact addresses these matters.

Similarly the Regulation on Construction Market Administration which is likely to be promulgated by the State Council later this year appears influenced by the FIDIC Yellow Book and is likely to provide a clearer legal basis for adopting some of the forms of contracting widely used in the international market, especially in respect of Design and Build contracts.

This Easter also coincides with the anniversary of the Independent Mediation Rules 2008 introduced by the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC) on 1 April 2008. These rules were implemented after the participation of over 120 arbitrators and construction engineering experts, including very well known experts. I know this, because my collegue Hew Kian Heong and I were also asked for my own humble contributions to this effort. I therefore know that these Mediation Rules were also drafted so that they could be used to support a multi-tiered dispute resolution process as envisaged by standard form contracts such as ICE and FIDIC.

One of the key attractions of the FIDIC suite of contracts is flexibility, which allow their renewed use in many new markets by taking into account local laws and regulation, and I have no doubt my Chinese friends will capitalize on this advantage its fullest.

 

Kluwer Construction Blog

Contract Administration, Project Management

We do not negotiate! Or do we?

by Conrad Egbert
With the market having fallen 40% until now, many clients, contractors and suppliers across the region have begun to renegotiate contracts. CW talks to some of the top experts in the industry to find out what they think about the trend. Last week, CW discovered that City of Arabia – the Ilyas & Mustafa Galadari owned US $3 billion development – is currently renegotiating certain contracts. …

Scroll to Top