Every FIDIC contract is, at its core, a risk allocation instrument dressed up in construction terminology. Clause 17 is where that allocation is made explicit, dividing the universe of things that can go wrong on a project into two camps: risks the Contractor bears because it priced them, insured them, or is simply best placed to manage them, and risks the Employer bears because no reasonable contractor could have priced or controlled them. Getting this distinction wrong at tender stage, or misapplying it during the works, is one of the most common sources of disputes on international projects.

…

Risk Allocation Under FIDIC: Employer’s Risks versus Contractor’s Risks in Clause 17Read More »

Termination is the most drastic remedy available under any construction contract, and the FIDIC forms are no exception. Bringing a contract to a premature end exposes both parties to substantial financial consequences, demobilisation costs, claims for loss of profit, and frequently protracted disputes over whether the termination was lawful in the first place. The FIDIC suite addresses termination through two parallel regimes — Clause 15, which governs termination by the Employer, and Clause 16, which governs suspension and termination by the Contractor. A wrongful termination can convert the terminating party from an aggrieved innocent into a repudiating defendant overnight, so the procedural discipline these clauses demand is not optional ceremony but the very thing that determines who wins.

…

Termination under FIDIC: For Cause and For Convenience under Clauses 15 and 16 (1999 vs 2017)Read More »

Few provisions in construction contracts generate as much controversy as force majeure — the clause that allocates risk when circumstances beyond any party’s control bring a project to its knees. Under the FIDIC 1999 suite, Clause 19 addressed “Force Majeure” in familiar, if imprecise, terms. The FIDIC 2017 editions deliberately rebranded the entire mechanism as “Exceptional Events” under Clause 18, a change that is more than cosmetic. The 2017 amendments introduce tighter procedural requirements, recalibrate the entitlement to additional time and money, and redefine what qualifies as a triggering event. For contractors, employers, and engineers working on international projects today, understanding the differences between these two regimes is not a matter of academic interest — it is a matter of contractual survival.

…

Force Majeure Under FIDIC: From “Force Majeure” to “Exceptional Events” — What Changed and Why It MattersRead More »

Variations are among the most commercially significant events on any FIDIC-governed project. The right to instruct variations sits at the core of the Employer’s contractual power, yet the mechanism is far from one-sided. FIDIC Clause 13 — in both the 1999 and 2017 editions of the Red, Yellow, and Silver Books — creates a comprehensive framework governing how variations are initiated, valued, and paid. Understanding this framework is essential for contractors seeking fair compensation, engineers administering change fairly, and employers controlling scope and cost. Mismanaging the variation process is one of the most common sources of dispute on major infrastructure and building projects worldwide.

…

Variations Under FIDIC Clause 13: Instructed Variations, Constructive Variations, and Value EngineeringRead More »

Payment is the lifeblood of any construction project, yet the FIDIC payment mechanism — in both the 1999 and 2017 suites — is among the most technically demanding and frequently disputed aspects of contract administration. From the preparation of the Interim Payment Certificate (IPC) and the Engineer’s power to withhold or correct amounts, to the Employer’s right of set-off and the contractor’s entitlement to financing charges on late payments, the payment clauses contain traps for the unwary on all sides. Understanding precisely how the mechanism operates, and where it commonly fails, is essential for contractors, employers, and engineers alike.

…

FIDIC Payment Provisions: The IPC Process, Withholding, Set-Off, and Late Payment InterestRead More »

Ground conditions have derailed more construction projects — and generated more claims — than almost any other single factor. When a contractor breaks ground and encounters rock where soil surveys suggested soft earth, or strikes an abandoned utilities network that no map recorded, or finds groundwater at depths that make excavation a different project entirely, the question of who bears the cost is rarely straightforward. FIDIC Sub-Clause 4.12 is the contractual mechanism designed to answer that question — but its application turns on a deceptively difficult concept: what an “experienced contractor” could reasonably have foreseen. Understanding how that test works in practice is essential for every party operating under a FIDIC contract.

…

Unforeseeable Ground Conditions Under FIDIC Sub-Clause 4.12: The Objective Test and What Contractors Must ProveRead More »

Of all the contentious provisions in international construction contracts, few have generated more disputes — or more anxiety among contractors — than the 28-day notice requirement embedded in Clause 20.1 of the FIDIC 1999 suite. Known colloquially as the “time-bar,” this clause has been the graveyard of otherwise meritorious claims, wiping out entitlements worth millions of dollars on technical grounds entirely unrelated to the merits of the underlying claim.

…

The FIDIC 2017 Claims Mechanism: Has the Time-Bar Beast Been Tamed?Read More »