CMGUIDE KNOWLEDGE HUB

Your Complete Resource for Construction Law & Contract Management

Construction Law, Contract Administration

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

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.

Construction Law, Contract Administration

Variations Under FIDIC Clause 13: Instructed Variations, Constructive Variations, and Value Engineering

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.

Construction Law, Contract Administration

FIDIC Payment Provisions: The IPC Process, Withholding, Set-Off, and Late Payment Interest

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.

Construction Law, Contract Administration

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

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.

Construction Law, Contract Administration

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

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.

Construction Law, Contract Administration, Dispute Boards, Statutory Adjudication

Reflecting on the Second Edition of International Contractual and Statutory Adjudication

By Dr Samer Skaik

Over the past decade, my work in construction law and adjudication has consistently reinforced one reality: adjudication has become a cornerstone of modern dispute resolution across the global construction industry. It has therefore been a privilege to contribute to the Second Edition of International Contractual and Statutory Adjudication, as an Assistant Editor as well as a Contributor of six chapters, bringing together perspectives from across multiple jurisdictions. The book is edited by the prominent author & practitioner Andrew Burr with editorial assistance from Narudee Chuekitkumchorn and myself.

Construction Law, Contract Administration, Dispute Boards

Why the World Bank Use DAABs: A Shield for Development Projects

The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) impose the use of Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Boards (DAABs) in the projects they fund for several critical reasons, all aimed at ensuring the successful and efficient delivery of large-scale infrastructure projects in developing countries. …

Construction Law, Contract Administration, Project Management

Decoding Concurrent Delay: The SCL Protocol and Employer Responsibility

Delays in construction and infrastructure projects are almost an inevitability. But what happens when multiple delays hit at once, and some are the client’s fault while others lie with the contractor? This is the tricky terrain of concurrent delay, a concept that can lead to significant disputes over extensions of time and financial compensation.

Construction Law, Contract Administration, Dispute Boards

Navigating the Tensions: A Guide to Mediation in Construction Disputes

Construction projects are inherently complex, often fraught with variables that can lead to disagreements, claims, and disputes. When a conflict arises, it can be costly in terms of time, money, and professional relationships. While a traditional approach might be to head straight to litigation, it is often more effective to leverage alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods like negotiation and mediation. The key to success lies in understanding and managing three core tensions that exist in every dispute.

Construction Law, Contract Administration, Dispute Boards

The Crucial Choice: One or Three Decision Makers in Construction Disputes

A fundamental question often arises at the heart of dispute resolution planning: should a dispute be decided by a single individual or a multi-member tribunal? This choice carries profound implications for speed, cost, expertise, and the ultimate robustness of the decision. This post delves into the arguments for each approach across various dispute resolution mechanisms, offering insights to inform this critical decision.

Construction Law, Contract Administration, Dispute Boards

Dispute Boards in Construction: Enforcement and Governing Law

Construction projects are complex undertakings, breeding grounds for disagreements that can escalate into costly, project-derailing disputes. For decades, the industry has sought better ways to resolve conflicts without resorting to lengthy arbitration or litigation. Enter the Dispute Board (DB), a project-based, real-time resolution mechanism designed to keep projects moving and relationships intact.

However, the power of a Dispute Board decision is not absolute. Its real-world teeth depend heavily on a crucial, often overlooked factor: the governing law of the contract. This article dives into the world of Dispute Boards, exploring how they function, how their decisions are enforced, and how the choice of jurisdiction can make or break their effectiveness, especially when compared to the statutory adjudication process.

Construction Law, Contract Administration

The Critical Edge: Why Early Warning Notices Matter in FIDIC 2017

Unforeseen events and potential issues are almost inevitable in construction and infrastructure projects. How these challenges are identified, communicated, and addressed can significantly impact a project’s success, cost, and timeline. The FIDIC 2017 suite of contracts places a strong emphasis on proactive risk management and dispute avoidance, with the Early Warning Notice (EWN), specifically under Sub-Clause 8.4 [Advance Warning], being a cornerstone of this philosophy.

This post dives into the rationale and utility of Early Warning Notices under FIDIC 2017, exploring what happens if these provisions are not complied with, and outlining the responsibilities of all parties when such a notice is issued. …

Scroll to Top