Fidic 1992 Pdf

[Adriene]

Dependingon what is written in the Contract and the Particular Conditions, generally speaking you have a case against the Employer. The damages which the Contractor may claim would include interest and/or financing charges. However, you must check the provisions of the Sub-clause 2.1 Engineer's duties and authority ,to see what is mentioned there. It is not very clear what is this Employer's Representative and what are his duties under the Contract,. However, one would suspect that you have a case against the Employer.

Is it recommended to have in a contract based on FIDIC's Electrical and Mechanical Works Contract an external expert acting as the Engineer? Or is there no problem in recruiting the Engineer from amongst the Beneficiary (in our case a "public" authority)? We are signing a contract shortly. The Engineer is according to the Red Book, Clause 2.4 Part I bound to act impartially. The question is if there is an internal incompatibility in the relationship to his Employer.

The FIDIC 1987 eRed Book does not have a similar provision as the one mentioned in the FIDIC 1999 edition Value Engineering, Sub-Clause 13.2 However you may find in the 1987 Red Book a so called bonus for early completion.

A contract was signed under the FIDIC Conditions of Contract which require that indices for the skilled and unskilled labour should be filled by the Contractor in the relevant Appendix while submitting the tender. This requirement including the source of the indices was however not fulfilled by the Contractor. This fact was noted but employer failed to get this requirement met and the contract was signed without this information. The dispute arose when the contractor submitted escalation claim due change in prices of the labour component according to relevant provision. The contractor insists the use source indices issued by the local government for calculation of adjustment which is near the place of the construction and because this condition is more profitable to contractor. The Client insists that he will use the indices issues by a gevernment office which are normally used in government contracts. I am the Arbitrator in one such case and need advice of FIDIC what will be the judicious coarse of action in this scenario. I however feel that entire responsibility of not providing this information cannot be placed on the Contractor and the Employer should have insured that Contractor provide this information before signing of the contract. omission was made and the contract was signed without this information (source of indices). I will be anxiously waiting for advice from your expert what reasonable coarse of action should be adapted in this dispute resolution as the Contractor has gone in dispute on this issue.

It seems that the Contractor made a mistake by not adding the information to the Appendix to Tender. The Employer then accepted the Tender and the Parties signed a Contract which included the mistake. Unfortunately you say that they cannot agree on the information which should be added to the Appendix to Tender. To correct the mistake requires a change to the signed Contract to add this information. Correcting a mistake in a Contract is a legal question which must be studied under the applicable law. FIDIC cannot comment on such legal questions.

Our firm has a contract for consulting services with the Government of El Salvador for the construction of major transportation infrastructure in the country. The project is divided into three packages that are governed by FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Works of Civil Engineering (Red book, 4th Ed. 1987). The construction of the first package of project, which included two 400-meter bridges over the most important river in El Salvador, was completed last April.The Contractor is a Joint Venture of firms that is now claiming additional payments based on the contract documents. In order to have a clear interpretation of the documents, we would like to clarify the following: Clause 67.1 Engineer's Decision - we would like to confirm if under this Clause the Contractor can claim for matters that happened during the construction period, even after the Take-Over Certificate has been issued and the Statement at Completion has been certified and paid.

Regarding Clause 67.1: if the Contractor is dissatisfied with an Engineer's evaluation of a claim under Clause 53, he may refer the matter at any time (before or after completion) to the Engineer under Clause 67.1 for an "Engineer's Decision". He can do this any time up to his Final Statement and there is no time limit. The Engineer then has 84 days to respond. The Contractor cannot submit a "new'" claim for normal determination under this clause. The claim must first be processed under Clause 53, and only when a Clause 53 determination has been given which the Contractor finds to be unacceptable do we have a "dispute" situation which can be handled under Clause 67.1.

FIDIC publishes guides to each of its forms of construction contract, which may provide the guidance you require on the procedures for claims. You would need to order the Guide for the use of whatever Conditions you are using. If your enquiry relates to October 2000. FIDIC's guides do not elaborate on the calculation of claims, so you might need to consult other publications. Personally, I am only aware of "Building and Civil Engineering Claims in Perspective" by Geoffrey Arthur Hughes, which was first published by Longman in 1983. It may have been republished and fulfil your needs.

I have the following problem and I can not find a solution in the FIDIC Red Book Fourth Edition 1887. The problem is as follows: we have made a contract with a pre-hand over list made, with the Engineer, in April 2000. A new contract, given to another company in the same building was given in May 2000, it was an obligation for me to give the keys of the building. As the Engineer is in Zimbabwe and the Building is in Burundi, no engineer was there for the hand over of the inside of the building. Now, the Engineer asks us to repair some things which were not on the pre-hand over list. Can you please tell me what I have to do.

FIDIC does not undertake to proffer advice relating to every situation which may arise under a FIDIC-based contract. However, it appears that the answer to your question depends upon whether a Taking Over Certificate has been issued. If so, the pre-hand over list presumably advised you of the work described in Sub-Clause 49.2(a), and the Engineer has asked you to repair some things as described in Sub-Clause 49.2(b). If not, the Engineer may be "specifying all the work which ... is required to be done ... before the issue of such Certificate" under Sub-Clause 48.1. In either case, you have not indicated any reason for not complying with the Engineer's instructions.

Our firm has a contract for consulting services with the Government of El Salvador for the construction of major transportation infrastructure in the country. The project is divided into three packages that are governed by FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Works of Civil Engineering (Red book, 4th Ed. 1987). The construction of the first package of project, which included two 400-meter bridges over the most important river in El Salvador, was completed last April.The Contractor is a Joint Venture of firms that is now claiming additional payments based on the contract documents. In order to have a clear interpretation of the documents, we would like to clarify the following: Clause 53.1 Notice of Claims - it is important to confirm if the Contractor can invoke this Clause to claim for additional payment owing to construction works that were performed before the Take-Over Certificate, once this Certificate has been issued. In other words, if the Contractor can claim for matters that happened during the construction period even after the Take-Over Certificate has been issued.

Regarding the application of Clause 53.1. This clause requires the Contractor to give Notice of a potential claim within 28 days of the event occurring. This establishes his right to claim and he should then proceed to substantiate the claim according to Clause 53.3. He can claim at any time - before or after Taking-over - if events occur (before or after taking-over) which he considers entitle him to claim. The intention of Clause 53.1 is to try to make sure claims are dealt with as and when they occur so that everyone is familiar with the circumstances (thus the 28 day provision) - and not to leave them to the end - when people have probably forgotten all the details. If he did this within the time limits, then the claim should be evaluated according to the Contractor's submissions. If he did not - as would appear to be the case - and has come in with a claim a considerable time after the event, then we would suggest that you have two courses of action. Firstly you should perhaps try to establish why he did not give notice within the 28 days. Either you can reject his claim on the ground that he did not submit it within 28 days as required by Clause 53.1, or, under Clause 53.4 you can make an assessment based on records which were kept at the time. Normally I would suggest it depends on the circumstances. If the claim appears to be frivolous and confused with no substantiation (possibly an event you knew nothing about) you may well decide to reject it. But if it concerns an event of which you were aware which you knew had disrupted the Contractor, then maybe you could consider it under Clause 53.4.

I have a question regarding adoption of FIDIC Red Book Fourth Edition reprinted 1992. The particular Contract contains Clause 51/52 "Variations" and also contains Clause 56 "Works to be Measured" and has BOQ. Design and Construct Services for Electrical and Mechanical were tendered as diagramatic designs and are to be developed to the Approval of Engineer as part of obligations under the Contract and have various BOQ items. This Design Development for Mechanical/Electrical services is his obligation under the Contract, and in this way would not seem to qualify as a Variation to the Contract. However new items to the original BOQ have been necessitated by DD. Under which Clause can new rates be established for the re-measure of these Works?

3a8082e126