Contract Administration

Contract Administration

You’re Creeping Me Out – Design Creep under the FIDIC Silver Book

by Sarah Thomas

In the wake of the current downturn, employers will increasingly look for greater budget certainty under EPC or Turnkey contracts. This is where the contractor undertakes all tasks – design, construction, management etc – so that, upon completion, the employer merely needs to ‘turn the key’ and operation of the plant or building can begin immediately. The whole point is that the contractor assumes price risk in return for relative autonomy over how he delivers the project – provided of course he meets the employer’s output requirements. But often employers want not just price certainty but also to retain control over design approval and how the project is actually delivered. This can lead to claims of ‘design creep’ by the contractor when he perceives that the employer is trying to introduce design improvements under the guise of reviewing the contractor’s documents.

But what is ‘design creep’? Why are contractors upset at its use and are their concerns justified?

I will be concentrating on the provisions of the FIDIC Silver Book, although design creep is not something particular to the Silver Book, or indeed any construction standard form.

Sub-clause 5.2 of the Silver Book allows the Employer to review the Contractor’s Documents. Nothing controversial about that. But what happens if the Employer undertakes a design review and makes ‘comments’ on those documents? Will those comments amount to a “Variation” (entitling the Contractor to time and money)? Or will they be taken as something less than a Variation, so that any additional work will have to be absorbed into the Contractor’s schedule and budget? This is the classic example of “design creep”.

What can the Contractor do when he considers that a comment constitutes a variation?

The first question to ask is: Does the “comment” amount to a “variation” under the terms of the contract? A Variation is defined in the Silver Book as “any change to the Employer’s Requirements or the Works which is instructed or approved as a variation under Clause 13″. Clause 13 [Variations] may be initiated at any time, “either by an instruction or by a request for the Contractor to submit a proposal”. The Contractor is often put in a difficult position because he must execute each variation unless he promptly gives notice that he cannot implement it (because of lack of goods, increased risk to safety or suitability of the Works or to his ability to meet Performance Guarantees). Obviously the broader the Employer’s Requirements and the Works are described in the contract, the less likely it is that the comment will be seen as a change to the Employer’s Requirements or to the Works.

However, if the comment does require a clear change, the Contractor’s first step should be to write to the Employer asking him to confirm whether the comment amounts to an instruction to change the Works under clause 13.1.

The second step is to follow the requirements of sub-clause 20.1 [Contractor’s Claims] and request the Employer to agree or determine adjustments to the Contract Price and the Schedule of Payments, proceeding in accordance with sub-clause 3.5 [Determinations].

But what if the comment does not amount to a ‘change’ as such. Is the Contractor still bound to follow it? This is the more difficult area. The Contractor could argue that the provision of comments that do not specify “non conformity with the Contract” is not a proper use of the review procedure under sub-clause 5.2. That clause only allows the Employer to give notice to the Contractor if a Contractor’s Document fails to comply with the Contract. There is a difference here between the FIDIC Silver and Yellow Books. The key difference is that the documents are submitted “for review and/or for approval” (if so specified) under Yellow but under Silver, they are submitted for review only. Thus under Silver, the argument can be made far more strongly that the Employer can only issue a notice if the documents don’t comply with the Contract. Under Yellow on the other hand, where a document is specified “for approval”, the Engineer can give notice of approval with or without comments. This is an important difference and is the reason why “design creep” may well be a bigger problem under the Yellow Book than under Silver. But under both contracts, it is important to remember that the Employer’s scope to review the Contractor’s documents is confined to issuing a notice that the document does not comply with the Contract. A Contractor would also be well advised to check the formalities for issuing instructions and variations under his contract – to see whether he does in fact have to implement the change. For example under the FIDIC contracts, an instruction must (1) be given in writing and (2) state the obligations to which it relates as well as the sub-clause in which the obligations are specified [Sub-clause 3.4].

No matter what approach the Contractor adopts, to the extent that the Contractor is making a claim under a FIDIC contract, he will have to comply with the provisions of sub-clause 20.1.

So, what has been your experience of design creep? Is it occurring more or less often? What do you see as the threshold that needs to be reached in order for a comment to turn into a Variation? I would be interested to hear your war stories.

Kluwer Construction Blog

Contract Administration

Private works contract and the owner’s legal guarantee obligation

by Maxime Simonnet

Commentary on the decision rendered by the third civil chamber of the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) on September 9, 2009

To protect the contractor from the risk of the owner’s insolvency, the law No. 94-475 of June 10, 1994 on the prevention and treatment of the difficulties encountered by contractors instituted the obligation for the owner to guarantee the contractor that the price of the ordered works would be paid.

This obligation, set out in Article 1799-1 of the Civil Code, concerns exclusively private works contracts, whose amount exceeds the minimum threshold fixed by the decree of July 30, 1999 at EUR 12,000.

It is mandatory, as Article 1799-1 of the Civil Code is public policy, and is materialized by a control mechanism of the payment of the loan financing the contractor’s contract, or, in the absence of a loan, by an obligation for the owner to provide to the contractor a specific guarantee.

In a decision rendered on September 9, 2009, the third civil chamber of the Cour de Cassation confirmed once again these various principles by recalling that the owner which enters into a private works contract must guarantee the contractor that the sums owed will be paid, no derogation being allowed.

Moreover and above all else, the Court recalled that the owner is liable for this payment guarantee obligation as from the execution of the works contract, the owner being unable to postpone it or make it conditional.

In this case, an owner had engaged a private contractor to renovate hotel rooms.

The owner had placed three service orders with its contractor, subject however to the latter providing to the owner a bank guarantee for the total amount of the works (considering its wish to subcontract the contract).

The contractor’s bank, for its part, agreed to provide it with this guarantee, but subject to the contractor obtaining from the owner a joint suretyship guaranteeing the payment of the contracts, in accordance with Article 1799-1 of the Civil Code.

Confronted with this request from the bank, the owner notified its contractor that the service orders were null and void on the grounds of the failure to meet the condition precedent to obtain the bank guarantee.

Having had its claims for the payment of various down payments and damages dismissed in first instance and in appeal, the contractor lodged an appeal before the Cour de Cassation.

Referring to paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1799-1 of the Civil Code, the Cour de Cassation quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal and granted the contractor’s claim.

Because, as from the execution of the contract, the owner was indeed liable, under Article 1799-1 of the Civil Code, for its legal guarantee obligation, without being able to condition it on the provision of a guarantee by the contractor.

By Maxime Simonnet and Chloé Niedermaier

Kluwer Construction Blog

Construction Law, Contract Administration

Tales Of The Unexpected: Where Liability Lurks Unseen #3

by Melanie Grimmitt

Recap

After a diversion a fortnight ago to address the newsworthy events in Dubai, normal service resumes with this blog. The previous two blogs in this series considered decennial liability and liability for harmful acts under UAE law.

This blog will briefly consider whether it is possible to limit liability under your contract eg by including liquidated damages provisions, and whether the courts will give effect to such a provision.

Limiting liability

On the face of it there seems clear evidence that it is possible to limit liability under a contract – take a look at Article 390(1) of the Civil Code.

However, it is not so certain that such a limitation will be upheld. In fact, the very next provision of the Civil Code (Article 390(2)) suggests that a judge may vary a clause seeking to fix compensation in advance so as to make the compensation fit the amount of loss suffered in the particular circumstances. Not exactly what contract drafters from common law jurisdictions will have expected!

But our contract is commercial not “civil”!

Some commentators have argued that the Civil Code does not apply to commercial contracts, and that therefore parties to commercial contracts can afford to ignore this possibility. This view is based on previous court decisions where the court has declined to apply the Civil Code to commercial contracts. Such a position would accord with English law where additional protection is given to consumer contracts, but where commercial parties who have equal bargaining power have far greater freedom to determine the apportionment of risk and liability between them.

However there is also plenty of case law where the courts have applied the Civil Code to commercial contracts. So better to err on the safe side and assume that this provision is relevant to commercial contracts.

No excuse for fraud or gross negligence anyway

In addition, even were it to be found that the Civil Code did not apply to commercial contracts, the courts would still be likely to interfere with any purported limitation of liability for fraud or gross negligence on public policy grounds.

When will a judge interfere and how?

There is no express guidance in the Civil Code as to the circumstances in which the court will exercise its power under Article 390(2) to adjust the measure of damages to reflect the actual loss. So far as I am aware, even Egyptian law, on which UAE law is in large measure based, only provides guidance on when a fixed amount of compensation may be reduced, rather than when it may be exceeded. Interestingly a similar provision under Bahraini law (also based on Egyptian law in large measure) expressly only refers to a reduction in the amount of fixed compensation where it can be established that no loss has been suffered or the amount fixed was grossly exaggerated (not far from “genuine pre-estimate of loss” perhaps, albeit that the test for genuine pre-estimate of loss is applied at the time the damages are fixed rather than when the loss is suffered).

However, it is possible to draw conclusions as to the application of Article 390(2) from general principles inherent in UAE law that relate to the conduct of parties to a contract. On this basis the courts would be more likely to adjust (or ignore) a limit on liability if the harm results from, for example, conduct by a party which is contrary to good faith, or an act which is wrongful or deliberate.

What to do?

Perhaps the best advice is to adopt the usual methodology to liquidated damages clauses and other “fixing” of liability clauses which would be adopted in common law jurisdictions: make sure the fixed compensation is actually likely to reflect the loss which will be suffered, rather than a windfall gain. And if you receive a claim for what you perceive as a windfall gain, don’t assume you must pay it even though the sum is clearly due under the terms of a contract – there might be grounds for challenge.

 

Kluwer Construction Blog

Construction Law, Contract Administration

Issues involved in Taxation of Construction contracts

by Sujjain Talwar

There is a lot of mystery regarding taxation of Construction activities in India. The mystery starts from the fact that a Construction contract involves both labour and material and hence, both Service tax and Value Added tax is levied on one transaction.

The process becomes more complex depending upon a number of factors such as the Scope of work, the nature of the contract, whether the contract includes any further sub-contracting, whether individual prices have been specified for each part of the scope of work and whether the contract involves off-shore and on-shore activities etc.
Let us first consider the Indirect taxes applicable on a Construction contract. As already stated above, a Construction contract involves both labour and materials. Hence, a Construction contract is liable to both Service tax and Value Added tax.

…

Issues involved in Taxation of Construction contractsRead More »

Contract Administration

GCC in catch-22 over FIDIC forms

The Fidic form of contracts has been in the Middle East since the 1970s, yet it is far from popular. Adam Webster looks at legal issues that should be borne in mind when negotiating Fidic-based contracts.
THE legal systems of the Middle East are founded upon civil law principles (most heavily influenced by Egyptian law, which is itself based on the Napoleonic Code) and Islamic Shariah law – the latter constituting the guiding principle and source of law.

The impact of Shariah law depends on the jurisdiction. For example, charging interest is prohibited under Saudi law, whereas only prohibitive interest will be unenforceable in the UAE. In the UAE and other civil law jurisdictions in the Middle East (including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman), legislation tends to be formulated into a number of major codes providing for general principles of law with a significant amount of subsidiary legislation. Unlike common law jurisdictions, there is little, if any, precedent and we can only surmise what decision a court may arrive at on any given point.
The Fidic forms of contract have been in use in the Middle East since the 1970s. Indeed, the abbreviation “Fidic” (Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs-Conseils) has become synonymous with the Middle East. It is somewhat paradoxical that the majority of Middle East countries, which source their law from a mixture of civil and Shariah law, have based their conditions of contract on the Fidic form despite the fact that the Fidic conditions of contract are based largely on English common law principles.
Historically, the public sector (in Gulf countries especially) has promoted Fidic as the accepted standard and the private sector has followed suit. There is no apparent rhyme or reason for this, and although Fidic is the established form of construction contract in the region, it is far from popular. It is interesting to note that whilst Abu Dhabi has officially adopted the Fidic form for its standard government contracts, it remains to be seen whether Dubai will follow suit.
According to a recent survey conducted by Norton Rose’s Middle East offices, most developers and contractors responded that they choose to use Fidic forms largely through habit (indeed 94 per cent of respondents said that they primarily use Fidic or modified Fidic contracts, largely because it is well-established and recognised within the region). That said, many respondents also complained that Fidic is too rigid and breeds an adversarial relationship. The current downturn may give contractors and developers time to reassess their contractual models and consider other forms of contract, including Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), New Engineering Contract (NEC) and partnering contracts. However, few respondents expected that there will be a change in approach towards contracts in the short term.
Unlike in the UK and other common law jurisdictions, countries in the Middle East do not have a specific body of construction or engineering-related laws and precedents, despite the fact that particular problems recur. Although civil codes can give some comfort and confidence to foreign developers and contractors, the uncertainty that often surrounds the interpretation of such laws should not be dismissed out of hand. While it is true that there are principles common to most legal systems, there are some quite significant differences, and often, in the context of construction and engineering projects, these have the capacity to be problematical if not addressed from the outset. As such, it is necessary to have an appreciation of and be aware of the relevant civil code articles and local law nuances which may impact on certain Fidic conditions.
Obviously, the issues vary from country to country as the local laws are not identical. That said, they are often quite similar and, as such, it is possible to highlight some of the key legal issues that should be borne in mind when negotiating Fidic-based contracts.
• In most (if not all) Gulf jurisdictions, it is not possible for contractors to contract out of liability for major structural defects, which threaten the total or partial collapse of a building for a period of not less than 10 years from the date of practical completion.
• Further, whilst it is possible for parties to ascertain and limit damages from the outset of a contract, if the actual damage sustained as a result of a breach is proven to be well in excess of any agreed cap, a court/arbitral tribunal may look beyond the cap and award damages that are quantifiably closer to the actual losses incurred.
• Contractors may also be precluded from claiming payment if payment certificates have not been issued in respect of work performed. Careful consideration should, therefore, be given to the wording of Fidic (or any other standard form or bespoke contract) to ensure that the time for late payment runs from the date on which the interim and/or final payment certificate, as opposed to the date on which the contractor’s application for payment, is made.
• The local laws of most Gulf nations permit parties to a contract to agree on the circumstances in which a contract can be terminated, including provisions that determine the contractor’s employment, but not all of the contractor’s obligations under the contract. In Bahrain, as in Qatar and Egypt, an employer may terminate a contract and stop work at any time before the completion of the works, provided he compensates the contractor for all the expenses he has incurred for the work completed and the profit he would have made if he had completed the works. The court may, however, on application of the employer reduce the compensation for loss of profit, if it sees fit. There is no such provision under the UAE law, however, and in certain circumstances, a court order may be required to terminate a contract. Drafting could be included in contracts governed by the UAE law to provide that the parties agree that they may be terminated without a court order if such termination is in accordance with the termination provisions, but it is not certain that this will be effective if challenged.The Fidic form of contracts has been in the Middle East since the 1970s, yet it is far from popular. Adam Webster looks at legal issues that should be borne in mind when negotiating Fidic-based contracts.

THE legal systems of the Middle East are founded upon civil law principles (most heavily influenced by Egyptian law, which is itself based on the Napoleonic Code) and Islamic Shariah law – the latter constituting the guiding principle and source of law.

The impact of Shariah law depends on the jurisdiction. For example, charging interest is prohibited under Saudi law, whereas only prohibitive interest will be unenforceable in the UAE. In the UAE and other civil law jurisdictions in the Middle East (including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman), legislation tends to be formulated into a number of major codes providing for general principles of law with a significant amount of subsidiary legislation. Unlike common law jurisdictions, there is little, if any, precedent and we can only surmise what decision a court may arrive at on any given point.

The Fidic forms of contract have been in use in the Middle East since the 1970s. Indeed, the abbreviation “Fidic” (Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs-Conseils) has become synonymous with the Middle East. It is somewhat paradoxical that the majority of Middle East countries, which source their law from a mixture of civil and Shariah law, have based their conditions of contract on the Fidic form despite the fact that the Fidic conditions of contract are based largely on English common law principles.


Historically, the public sector (in Gulf countries especially) has promoted Fidic as the accepted standard and the private sector has followed suit. There is no apparent rhyme or reason for this, and although Fidic is the established form of construction contract in the region, it is far from popular. It is interesting to note that whilst Abu Dhabi has officially adopted the Fidic form for its standard government contracts, it remains to be seen whether Dubai will follow suit.


According to a recent survey conducted by Norton Rose’s Middle East offices, most developers and contractors responded that they choose to use Fidic forms largely through habit (indeed 94 per cent of respondents said that they primarily use Fidic or modified Fidic contracts, largely because it is well-established and recognised within the region). That said, many respondents also complained that Fidic is too rigid and breeds an adversarial relationship. The current downturn may give contractors and developers time to reassess their contractual models and consider other forms of contract, including Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), New Engineering Contract (NEC) and partnering contracts. However, few respondents expected that there will be a change in approach towards contracts in the short term.


Unlike in the UK and other common law jurisdictions, countries in the Middle East do not have a specific body of construction or engineering-related laws and precedents, despite the fact that particular problems recur. Although civil codes can give some comfort and confidence to foreign developers and contractors, the uncertainty that often surrounds the interpretation of such laws should not be dismissed out of hand. While it is true that there are principles common to most legal systems, there are some quite significant differences, and often, in the context of construction and engineering projects, these have the capacity to be problematical if not addressed from the outset. As such, it is necessary to have an appreciation of and be aware of the relevant civil code articles and local law nuances which may impact on certain Fidic conditions.


Obviously, the issues vary from country to country as the local laws are not identical. That said, they are often quite similar and, as such, it is possible to highlight some of the key legal issues that should be borne in mind when negotiating Fidic-based contracts.


• In most (if not all) Gulf jurisdictions, it is not possible for contractors to contract out of liability for major structural defects, which threaten the total or partial collapse of a building for a period of not less than 10 years from the date of practical completion.


• Further, whilst it is possible for parties to ascertain and limit damages from the outset of a contract, if the actual damage sustained as a result of a breach is proven to be well in excess of any agreed cap, a court/arbitral tribunal may look beyond the cap and award damages that are quantifiably closer to the actual losses incurred.


• Contractors may also be precluded from claiming payment if payment certificates have not been issued in respect of work performed. Careful consideration should, therefore, be given to the wording of Fidic (or any other standard form or bespoke contract) to ensure that the time for late payment runs from the date on which the interim and/or final payment certificate, as opposed to the date on which the contractor’s application for payment, is made.


• The local laws of most Gulf nations permit parties to a contract to agree on the circumstances in which a contract can be terminated, including provisions that determine the contractor’s employment, but not all of the contractor’s obligations under the contract. In Bahrain, as in Qatar and Egypt, an employer may terminate a contract and stop work at any time before the completion of the works, provided he compensates the contractor for all the expenses he has incurred for the work completed and the profit he would have made if he had completed the works. The court may, however, on application of the employer reduce the compensation for loss of profit, if it sees fit. There is no such provision under the UAE law, however, and in certain circumstances, a court order may be required to terminate a contract. Drafting could be included in contracts governed by the UAE law to provide that the parties agree that they may be terminated without a court order if such termination is in accordance with the termination provisions, but it is not certain that this will be effective if challenged.

Gulf Construction

Contract Administration

Contractor risk in the Gulf’s ‘new wave’ of EPC contracting

1 Comment

by Sachin Kerur

With global business headlines currently dominated by debt restructuring issues facing Dubai World, the Gulf region is again subject to the negative gaze of the West. Despite this, the UAE and the broader Gulf region is likely to be a fertile region for major international contractors over the coming years.
Imminent infrastructure projects in the Gulf, as well as the current one, will provide major contractors with opportunities when global pickings are slim. However, contractors are already facing, and will continue to face, an increased transfer of risk combined with compressed margins in respect of new infrastructure projects and EPC contracts. …

Contractor risk in the Gulf’s ‘new wave’ of EPC contractingRead More »

Contract Administration

The Foreign Project Consultant as Jian Li

2 Comments

by Hew Kian Heong

Many years ago, I saw a Chinese construction contract for the first time, and there was mention of a person called a “Jian Li” in the contract. I asked myself – what strange creature is this Jian Li?

The literal meaning of Jian Li in Chinese is “project supervisor” and it refers to someone engaged by the owner to supervise the contractor on matters like construction quality, progress of works and cost control. The Jian Li’s main role is really to ensure that a project is constructed safely and to the quality standards as required under law. The appointment of a Jian Li is mandatory for certain types of construction projects in China, for example projects funded by international development agencies, infrastructure projects and public utilities projects.

The concept of a Jian Li in China originated in the 1980s, early years in China’s transition to market economy. In those days, it was common practice for employers to manage construction projects on their own without any external professional support. The obvious problem was that inexperienced employers often ended up with projects with quality problems because the contractors were not properly supervised or managed in their work. Poor quality buildings and works were a major headache for the industry. The introduction of a Jian Li was part of an effort by the government to resolve this problem. Although appointed by the employer, the Jian Li is primarily intended to play a statutory role similar to that of an independent checker of works which we see in many countries.

In the last three decades, we have seen a massive influx of foreign investors relocating their manufacturing operations to China. Factories were and continue to be put up all over the country at an amazing speed. Most of these factories were built and will continue to be built by local Chinese contractors. Foreign contractors have not been able to get a foothold in the Chinese construction market due to a variety of reasons including restrictions on market entry, the tough requirements to obtain and maintain a contractor’s license and most importantly the inability to compete with the local Chinese contractors on pricing.

However, many foreign investors who are new to China are not used to working with the local Chinese contractors. They do not know for sure if the local Chinese contractors will build their factories in China to the same standards as their factories elsewhere. They therefore often look to the foreign contractors or construction professionals that they have used elsewhere to build their factories for help in managing or supervising the construction of their projects in China.

Many foreign contractors and construction professionals have come to China with the objective of servicing the foreign investors. Many of them have in fact followed their clients to China. Most of these foreign contractors and construction professionals have chosen to set up “project consultancy” companies employing both foreign and Chinese construction professionals. The business that a project consultancy company is licensed to undertake is however fairly limited, but it is relatively easy and cheap to set up. Although not ideal, with the right contract structures, these project consultancy companies have been able to service their clients’ needs adequately. Many become involved from the very start of a project, helping their clients with site selection and due diligence, right up to the ultimate delivery of the completed project to the clients.

On many projects, one would often find the foreign owner appointing a Jian Li as well as a project consultant. The project consultant’s role is usually wider than that of the Jian Li but it would invariably also involve ensuring that the project is built to the correct standards and quality. The Jian Li is however primarily concerned with ensuring that statutory standards and quality are met andthe project consultant is concerned with ensuring that contractual standards and quality are met. Although statutory and contractual requirements often overlap, the former are often less stringent than the latter. This gives rise to a risk that the Jianli and the project consultant in performing their respective supervision duties on a project may give inconsistent messages to the contractor if they are not properly coordinated.

One would have thought that it would be more efficient for one party to perform the duties of both the Jian Li and the project consultant. Most owners would certainly prefer a single point of responsibility. It would at least avoid any inconsistency in performance of their respective duties. For a long time, this was not possible. To set up a Jian Li company, one has to be licensed by the construction authorities. Before 2007, foreigners were not allowed to set up or acquire interest in a Jian Li company.

On 26 March 2007, the Regulations on the Administration of Foreign-invested Construction Service Enterprises was introduced which allows foreigners to set up or acquire interest in Jian Li companies. This was part of China’s effort to fulfill its World Trade Organization commitment to open up the construction engineering services sector. However, despite the Regulations, the market has not seen the setting up of many foreign invested Jian Li companies. Why is this?

I can think of a few reasons. I suspect the main reason is the regulatory limitations. Similar to construction and design companies, Jian Li companies must obtain Skill Qualifications Certificates (SQCs) from the construction authority before they can carry out business. The SQCs are classified into several grades which determine the size and scope of the projects that the holder is permitted to work on. A newly set up Jian Li company is only allowed to apply for the lowest grade of SQC and has to wait for at least two years to apply for a higher grade. This is obviously not appealing to foreign investors as it will take too long before they are able to upgrade to a SQC that will allow them to undertake the bigger projects that they desire.

Local protectionism may also be a factor hindering the growth in numbers of foreign-invested Jian Li companies. One of my clients recently complained to me that his proposal to acquire a Chinese Jian Li company was rejected by the local construction authority. I asked him about the reasons for the rejection. My client said that he believed the real reason was that the authority is keen to protect the local Jian Li companies from foreign competition. The official response from the local construction authority was that the review of our client’s application could not take place because the central construction authority has not issued any detailed implementation rules for the Regulations yet. And so we wait…

 

Kluwer Construction Blog

Contract Administration

Chinese Drywall Update – Chinese Manufacturer Waives Hague Convention

by Andrew Ness

Problems with drywall imported from China during the ill-fated U.S. housing boom continue to be front and center in the southeastern U.S., as complaints continue to roll in regarding health problems allegedly caused by the tainted wallboard, as well as damage to electrical and plumbing work. Naturally enough, a significant litigation boom has followed, including attempts to bring claims against the Chinese manufacturers who supplied the drywall. In a recent development, Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd (“KPT”), a leading defendant in the consolidated federal court lawsuit against manufacturers of Chinese drywall, has agreed to accept service of process for homeowner plaintiffs who are named in an Omnibus Class Action Complaint, and to waive its right to demand service of process through the Hague Convention (saving plaintiffs the $15,000 service fee).

According to the November 2, 2009 Order of United States District Court Judge Eldon E. Fallon, KPT’s offer was only available for a limited time to those homeowners capable of providing the required documentation. Homeowners had to sign up for the class action by December 2, 2009 and provide photographs, inspection reports, or other proof of KPT drywall in their home to Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel. Plaintiffs also have to submit a fully completed and executed Plaintiff Profile Form to Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel by December 14, 2009. The offer applies only to the consolidated federal litigation. KPT has not agreed to waive its right to effectuate service through the Hague Convention in any other civil action.

 

Kluwer Construction Blog

Contract Administration

Ppp Projects In Brazil: 2) General Concepts And A Comparative Comparative View Between Ppp And Concession

by Júlio César Bueno

Continuing our last discussion on PPPs in Brazil, we should note that PPP LAW applies to government entities (including mixed-capital companies) directly or indirectly controlled by the Federal Government, States, Federal District and Municipalities. Article 2 of PPP LAW defines PPP as follows: “Public-Private Partnership is an administrative concession contract that may assume the form of either a sponsored or an administrative concession contract.” PPPs are expected to be implemented concurrently with existing concession contracts, focusing on infrastructure projects. PPP LAW provides for sponsored concession and administrative concession.

The administrative concession is defined in Article 2, paragraph 2 of PPP LAW as a “service agreement in which the government entity is the direct or indirect user, even if such agreement involves performance of works or supply and installation of assets.” This type of concession is governed by PPP LAW, by Articles 21, 23, 25 and 27 through 39, of Law No. 8987, 1995 [FED. LAW 8987], and by Article 31 of Law No. 9074, 1995 [FED. LAW 9074]. An administrative concession contract is that by which government entities delegate performance of a public service to a private company. Such private company will develop the activity for its own account and at its own risk for the period and on the conditions agreed in the respective contract. In administrative concessions, services are directly or indirectly provided to government entities. For instance, the government entity may open competitive bidding procedures for the construction and operation of hospitals and prisons.

The sponsored concession, as defined in Article 2, paragraph 1, is “the concession of public works or services as dealt with in FED. LAW 8987 when it involves, in addition to the fees charged to users, payment of a compensation from the public partner to the private partner.” A sponsored concession is actually an ordinary concession in which the State gives some type of consideration. This type of concession is governed by PPP LAW by FED. LAW 8987 and related legislation. A sponsored concession may be adopted, for instance, in the cases of railways and highways in general.

Article 2, paragraph 3, of PPP LAW expressly stipulates that “the ordinary concession, i.e. the concession of public works or services as dealt with in FED. LAW 8987, will not be considered a public-private partnership when it does not involve payment of compensation from the public partner to the private partner.” Reflecting a general concern about the manner in which PPPs are to be conducted, PPP LAW also lays down the following guidelines:
(a) Efficiency in complying with the State’s missions and in using the company’s funds (due care in the use of the public funds invested in the activity);
(b) Respect to the interests and rights of service users and of the private entities charged with performing the services;
(c) Non-transferability of regulatory and jurisdictional duties, the exercise of police power and other activities inherent to the State;
(d) Fiscal responsibility in the execution and performance of partnerships, as Article 10, I(b) of PPP LAW stipulates that the rules set out in FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW must be observed;
(e) Transparency in procedures and decisions;
(f) Objective sharing of risks between the parties; and
(g) Financial sustainability and socioeconomic advantages of PPP projects.

These guidelines mirror the spirit of care the legislator wishes government entities to adopt when contracting PPPs, reminding them of certain principles and concepts already contemplated by the legislation applicable to contracting of works, services, and other items by government entities with companies of the private sector.

Generally speaking, PPPs operate as an arrangement between the public and private sectors for execution of works originally entrusted to public concerns, which lack funds and/or expertise. As far as this concept is concerned, PPPs and ordinary concessions may seem to be very similar this is not necessarily true.

Even though both PPPs and ordinary concessions are administrative contracts between the government authorities and a private entity, more specifically concession contracts in a broad sense – concession contracts, in their broad sense, comprise all those in which government entities delegate the provision or performance of services (whether or not preceded by public works) to a private entity, which will perform the activities inherent to the services and assume the business risk under the contractual conditions. Prevalence of the public interest and an assurance of the original economic and financial conditions also constitute essential characteristics of concession contracts – there is a substantial difference between them: while in ordinary concessions, regulated by FED. LAW 8987, the compensation obtained by the contracted concessionaire (private entity) always originates from the service users only, in PPPs the compensation is fully or partially paid by the public partner to the private partner. In sponsored PPPs, the compensation received by the concessionaire from service users is, in principle, supplemented by the compensation paid by the public entity to the private entity, whereas in administrative PPPs all the compensation is paid to the private partner by the contracting public entity itself – Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 6 of PPP LAW.

In other words, PPPs are slated for services and/or public works that do not generate sufficient compensation to the contractor (e.g. expansion and management of highways or railroads with few users) or that do not even involve payment of fees by their users (e.g. construction and management of penitentiaries or public hospitals). Therefore, in addition to dealing with cases requiring investments and/or specialization beyond the possibilities of the public entity, PPPs have another specific characteristic: the venture itself is unable to pay off. These are the basic differences between PPPs and ordinary concessions, and should serve as guiding principles in bidding procedures, analysis of proposals and, particularly, concession contracts regulating PPPs.

Unlike ordinary concession contracts, PPP contracts are subject to more extensive and complex regulations: in addition to traditional clauses such as contractual term (which is considerably longer), PPP contracts must provide for rather specific aspects difficult to be expressed in few general terms. Therefore, PPPs cannot adopt near-standard draft concession contracts, which are mostly adhesion contracts.

The methods of compensation and the guarantees tendered (guarantee fund, insurance, etc.) by the public entity to the contractor, the risk sharing between the parties, the possibility of transferring the special purpose company (a legal entity incorporated to enter into PPPs) to financiers in case of default, the definition of performance evaluation criteria in accordance with the contractual term, among others, will be a matter of concern of those involved in drafting and negotiating PPP contracts. Certainly, this will require a more active involvement of bidders in drafting the contracts, which might result in an ample and detailed document, very probably in similar terms of common law contracts. This obviously strengthens the importance – after the phase of comparative law examination – of studying in advance examples of successful PPP contracts abroad, particularly the pioneering PPP contracts in England.

Having described the fundamental differences between PPPs and ordinary concessions, it is worth dealing once again with their contractual similarities. Both are kinds of administrative concession contracts. For this reason, PPP LAW expressly provides that PPP contracts must meet the general requirements of FED. LAW 8987 for ordinary concession contracts, such as: tariff adjustment mechanisms; methods and standards for service evaluation, expansion and inspection; indemnity calculations; users’ rights and duties; and periodical rendering of accounts by the private party to the public party. As a consequence of this legal provision, the caution taken when drafting PPP contracts must be redoubled, i.e. FED. LAW 8987 must be observed, insofar as applicable, and PPP LAW must be fully observed.

Generally speaking, once this new channel of investments is opened, there are very positive prospects of its use and results. However, it is important to stress the relevant and specific features (which have only been outlined above) of PPPs vis-à-vis ordinary concessions, notably when it comes to the careful drafting of PPP contracts. Hopefully, publication of the PPP LAW will catch the spirit of such date, not only confirming the expectation for a successful future, but also contributing toward a solid and continuous growth cycle in Brazil.

 

Kluwer Construction Blog

Contract Administration

A Convenient Ending

by Joel Heard

Recent examples illustrate clearly that cancelling a project can be very expensive. The City of Ottawa recently paid over C$36 million to settle claims from contractors arising from the cancellation of a light rail transit project. In Montréal, the termination of a contract to build an incinerator has resulted in years of costly litigation and a large court award against the municipal defendants (which they have appealed). …

A Convenient EndingRead More »

Scroll to Top