Відео

Thank you

Thank you

Please check this link: ua-cam.com/video/u8zR8_mMn-o/v-deo.html&ab_channel=TrendingTopix

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Glad you liked it

ua-cam.com/video/JPj5L-EG-jw/v-deo.html

Thanks

Glad it was helpful!

Agreed. Thank you for pointing it out. Let me fix the issue. Thank you.

ua-cam.com/video/X2Txj6eUA54/v-deo.html

In the FIDIC Conditions of Contract for EPC/Turnkey Projects (1999), Sub-Clauses 8.5 and 13.7 address different aspects of delays and cost adjustments: Sub-Clause 8.5 (Delays Caused by Authorities): This clause deals with delays or disruptions caused by legally constituted public authorities in the Country. It applies when the Contractor has diligently followed the procedures laid down by these authorities, and the delay or disruption was unforeseeable by an experienced contractor by the date of the Tender submission. If these conditions are met, the Contractor may be entitled to an extension of the Time for Completion under Sub-Clauses 8.5 and 8.4(b). This clause is specifically focused on delays due to actions or inactions of public authorities. Sub-Clause 13.7 (Adjustments for Changes in Legislation): On the other hand, Sub-Clause 13.7 addresses adjustments to the Contract Price resulting from changes in the Laws of the Country (including new laws, repeal, modification, or changes in interpretation) made after the Base Date. If such legislative changes affect the Contractor's performance of obligations under the Contract, leading to delays or additional costs, the Contractor is entitled to both an extension of time (under Sub-Clause 8.4) and compensation for the increased costs. This clause is broader in scope, covering any changes in legislation that impact the Contractor's costs and schedule. The key difference between these two clauses is their scope and trigger events. Sub-Clause 8.5 is specific to delays caused by public authorities' actions or inactions, while Sub-Clause 13.7 encompasses cost adjustments due to legislative changes. Both clauses provide mechanisms for the Contractor to claim extensions of time and/or cost adjustments, but they are invoked under different circumstances.

Sub-Clause 12.3 of the FIDIC 1999 suite is designed to address situations where there are significant changes in the quantities of work. The application of this clause can vary based on the specific circumstances of each project, but here are some general guidelines to address your queries: Application of Revised Unit Rate (Question a): The revised unit rate, once determined, is typically applied to the total measured quantity of the work upon completion. This means that if a new rate is agreed upon or determined due to a change in quantities, it would be applied to the entire quantity of that particular item, not just the additional quantity. Revised Rate for Increased Quantity Only (Question b): In some cases, the revised rate may be applied only to the additional quantity that exceeds the original BOQ quantity. This depends on the specific circumstances and how the revised rate is calculated. The Engineer should consider all relevant factors, including the nature of the work and the reasons for the quantity change, when determining whether the revised rate applies to the total quantity or just the additional quantity. Pro Rata Rate Application (Question c): Generally, the revised rate is applied to the quantity that exceeds the BOQ quantity. This means that if there is an increase in quantity beyond the permissible percentage, the revised rate would typically be applied to the entire quantity that is over and above the original BOQ quantity. A typical example to illustrate this might be a situation where the quantity of an item of work in the BOQ is significantly increased due to unforeseen site conditions. If this increase meets the criteria set out in Sub-Clause 12.3, a revised rate would be determined. Depending on the agreement or determination, this revised rate could apply to the entire quantity of that item (including the original BOQ quantity and the additional quantity) or just to the additional quantity beyond the BOQ.

In the FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction (1999), there are limited provisions for direct payment from the Employer to subcontractors, except for those nominated under Clause 5. Specifically, Sub-Clause 5.4 addresses direct payment to a nominated Subcontractor. For other subcontractors, the FIDIC contract does not facilitate direct payment from the Employer, as they are not parties to the main contract. Their recourse for non-payment by the main Contractor typically depends on the terms of their respective subcontracts and the governing law. It's important to note that FIDIC publications provide clarification on contract terms but do not offer specific advice on individual contractual situations, as their application depends on the governing law. To address these and other complexities in FIDIC contracts, I am starting a new playlist on my UA-cam channel focusing on the FIDIC Red Book - Conditions of Subcontract for Construction 2011 Edition. This series will delve into the nuances of subcontracting under FIDIC contracts, particularly regarding payment protection and related issues. In projects like the MAHSR, where specific issues related to subcontractor payments and obligations are critical, drafting tailored Particular Conditions (PCs) is a common approach. For instance, provisions under Sub-Clause 4.4 can be designed to allow for the suspension or termination of the Subcontract in certain scenarios, or for the assignment of the Subcontract to the Employer under specific conditions. Similarly, Sub-Clause 4.5 can include mechanisms for ensuring that nominated Subcontractors are paid the amounts certified by the Engineer and provide for direct payment by the Employer in certain circumstances, subject to the terms of the main contract and the subcontract. These tailored PCs can offer additional protection and clarity for subcontractors, ensuring that their rights and obligations are adequately addressed within the framework of the main contract. However, it's crucial to ensure that these PCs are drafted in compliance with the applicable laws and the overall contractual framework of the project.

Under Sub-Clause 12.3 of the FIDIC Conditions of Contract, the conditions for justifying a new rate or price for an item of work are indeed subject to specific criteria. It's important to understand how these criteria are applied: Criteria Application: The use of the word 'and' at the end of item (iii) in Sub-Clause 12.3(a) indicates that all four criteria (i to iv) must be met simultaneously for a new rate or price to be appropriate. This is in contrast to Sub-Clause 13.1, where the word 'or' after item (e) suggests that each criterion is considered separately. Determining Increase or Decrease in Rate: Whether the rate increases or decreases depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Criterion (iii) in Sub-Clause 12.3(a) refers to a change in the Cost per unit quantity. This change could be either an increase or a decrease, depending on how the variation in quantity affects the Contractor's Cost per unit quantity. No Preset Rule for Rate Adjustment: While there is a common perception that increased quantities should lead to lower rates (and vice versa), the FIDIC Conditions of Contract do not explicitly stipulate this. The adjustment of rates is based on the actual impact on costs, which can vary depending on numerous factors such as economies of scale, market conditions, and the specific nature of the varied work.

In response to your query about the duration of the Defects Notification Period in a FIDIC contract, it's important to clarify the common misunderstanding between the Defects Notification Period and the warranty period. Start of the Defects Notification Period: As per Sub-Clause 1.1.3.7 of the FIDIC Conditions of Contract, the Defects Notification Period begins on the date when the Works or a Section of the Works is completed and certified in the Taking Over Certificate (refer to Sub-Clause 10.1). This means that the Defects Notification Period does not start from the commencement of the works but from the issuance of the Taking Over Certificate for the Works or Section. Duration of the Defects Notification Period: The standard length of the Defects Notification Period is typically 365 days, as stated in the Appendix to Tender, but this can be altered by the Employer in the tender documents. The Defects Notification Period is distinct from the warranty period and should not be confused with it. Relation to Warranty Period: The warranty period, often lasting for a duration like two years from the date of the Taking Over Certificate, is separate and covers the Contractor's liability for defects that become apparent after the Taking Over of the Works. The Defects Notification Period is part of this broader warranty period but has a specific start and end date as defined in the contract. Further Guidance: For a more detailed discussion on the Defects Notification Period, you can refer to 'The FIDIC Contracts Guide', particularly pages 195 to 204, which provides comprehensive insights into this clause.

In addressing your query about the validity period of the Performance Security under the FIDIC 1999 Conditions of Contract for Construction, it's important to refer directly to the relevant clauses: Validity of Performance Security: As per Sub-Clause 4.2, the Performance Security provided by the Contractor is typically required to remain valid until the Contractor has fulfilled all its obligations under the contract. This includes not only the completion of the works and the issuance of the Taking Over Certificate but also the fulfillment of any obligations during the Defects Notification Period. Issuance of Performance Certificate: Sub-Clause 11.9 specifies that the Engineer shall issue the Performance Certificate within 28 days after the latest of the expiry dates of the Defects Notification Periods or upon completion of all contractor's obligations under the contract. Return of Performance Security: The final paragraph of Sub-Clause 4.2 states that the Employer shall return the Performance Security to the Contractor within 21 days after receiving a copy of the Performance Certificate. Therefore, to directly answer your question, the Performance Security must remain valid not just until the issuance of the Taking Over Certificate but until the issuance of the Performance Certificate, which follows the completion of all obligations, including those during the Defects Notification Period. This ensures that the Performance Security covers the Contractor's obligations for the entire duration of the contract, including any responsibilities during the Defects Notification Period.

(1) Suitability for Cost Plus Basis: The FIDIC 1999 Design-Build Contract is primarily designed for lump sum agreements, where the Contractor is responsible for both the design and construction at a predetermined price. This contract type is not inherently suitable for a cost plus basis, where the Contractor is paid for the actual costs of construction plus a fee. In a cost plus model, the Contractor might be incentivized to increase costs, including through design changes, to receive higher payment. This could conflict with competitive tendering principles in some jurisdictions. If you require a cost plus basis, you might consider adapting the FIDIC 1999 Construction Contract, which is based on remeasurement. However, this would necessitate significant modifications in the Particular Conditions, as this contract is typically based on the Employer's design, not the Contractor's. For guidance on adapting the Construction Contract, refer to the 'Guidance for the Preparation of Particular Conditions for the Construction Contract,' particularly the commentary on Sub-Clause 14.1. (2) Role of Cost Estimator: In the FIDIC 1999 Design-Build Contract, the role of cost control and estimation is typically encompassed within the duties of the Engineer (Sub-Clause 1.1.2.4). The Engineer, responsible for administering the contract, may appoint assistants with cost estimation expertise as per Sub-Clauses 3.1 and 3.2. The process of establishing direct, indirect, and overhead costs usually involves the Engineer requesting proposals from the Contractor, followed by negotiation or determination of the required breakdowns. Some Employers may specify the need for a cost breakdown in the Particular Conditions or Employer's Requirements. While the term 'cost estimator' is not explicitly mentioned, the function of cost estimation and control is implicitly covered through the Engineer's role and responsibilities.

In FIDIC contracts, the responsibility for the preparation of working or shop drawings depends on whether the design is the responsibility of the Employer or the Contractor. The specific clauses addressing this vary slightly between the FIDIC 1999 Construction Contract (where design is by the Employer) and the FIDIC 1999 Design-Build Contract (where design is by the Contractor). FIDIC 1999 Construction Contract: In this contract, working or shop drawings prepared by the Contractor would fall under 'Contractor's Documents' as defined in Sub-Clause 1.1.6.1. While FIDIC contracts do not explicitly state the use of these drawings for quantities and inspection, they could be relevant under Sub-Clause 1.10, which deals with the Employer's use of Contractor's Documents. If the Contractor is required to provide additional drawings for parts of the Works designed by the Employer, this requirement should be explicitly stated in the Contract as per Sub-Clause 4.1. FIDIC 1999 Design-Build Contract: In this contract, the provision of Contractor's Documents, including working or shop drawings, is more extensively covered under Sub-Clause 5.2, as the Contractor is responsible for the design. Instructions related to these documents by the Engineer would typically be issued under Sub-Clause 3.3 and may constitute a Variation as per Clause 13. In both contracts, if the Engineer needs to instruct the Contractor to submit working or shop drawings for the purpose of calculating quantities or for regular site inspection, and if such a requirement is not explicitly covered in the contract, it might be treated as a Variation. The Engineer's instructions in this regard should be in accordance with the provisions of the contract, ensuring that any additional requirements are clearly communicated and documented.

Incorporating a bonus payment provision for accelerated completion in a FIDIC Construction Contract (1st Edition 1999) requires careful drafting in the Contract of Particular Application (COPA). While Clause 8.7 in the FIDIC 1999 primarily deals with Delay Damages and does not explicitly cover bonus payments for early completion, you can certainly add such a provision in the Particular Conditions. To address this in your COPA, you might consider the following steps: Drafting a New Sub-Clause: Create a new sub-clause under Clause 8 or an appropriate section in the Particular Conditions. This sub-clause should clearly define the criteria for accelerated completion and the method for calculating the bonus payment. Reference to the Appendix to Tender: The bonus payment amount or the formula for its calculation should be specified in the Appendix to Tender. This ensures clarity and avoids ambiguity in the contract terms. Consulting Guidance Documents: While the 1999 FIDIC guidance primarily provides examples for bonus payments on the completion of Sections, you can adapt this to suit your needs for overall project completion. Additionally, the wording from the 1987 FIDIC Fourth Edition Red Book can be a useful reference. You would modify the clause references to align with the 1999 Contract structure. For example: 'If the Contractor achieves completion of the Works in accordance with Sub-Clause 8.2 prior to the time prescribed in the Appendix to Tender, the Employer shall pay to the Contractor, subject to Sub-Clause 20.1 [Contractor's Claims], the sums stated in the Appendix to Tender for every day saved.' Legal Review: It's advisable to have the drafted provision reviewed by legal experts familiar with FIDIC contracts to ensure it aligns with the rest of the contract and adheres to legal standards. Clear Mechanism for Claiming the Bonus: Ensure that the mechanism for the Contractor to claim the bonus is clear and straightforward, possibly aligning it with the process for interim payments or final account settlement. By carefully drafting and incorporating a bonus payment provision for accelerated completion, you can incentivize early completion while maintaining the balance and fairness inherent in FIDIC contracts.

Addressing your concerns about the impact of substantial increases in contract value due to variations on unit rates under FIDIC contracts, it's important to distinguish between the provisions of the 1987 and 1999 editions. FIDIC 1987 (with 1992 updates): Under this version, Sub-Clause 52.3 deals with adjustments in contract price due to variations. If the total varied work and re-measurement of estimated quantities result in an increase of more than 15% in the total contract value, the Engineer is required to agree or determine a lump sum addition or deduction to the Contract Price. This adjustment considers the Contractor's site and general overhead costs. For a detailed explanation, refer to the "Guide to the use of FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Works of Civil Engineering Construction Fourth Edition," particularly around page 117. FIDIC 1999: In contrast, the 1999 edition, particularly Sub-Clause 12.3, focuses on adjustments to individual rates for each item of work. The new rate applies when certain criteria are met, as outlined in subparagraphs (a) for measured quantities and (b) for Variations. The process for determining these new rates is described in the subsequent paragraphs of Sub-Clause 12.3. For further insights, "The FIDIC Contracts Guide" for the 1999 Contracts provides explanations on pages 209 (for measured quantities) and 210 (for Variations). In both cases, whether the unit rates go up or down due to variations (like increased quantities) depends on several factors, including the nature of the varied work, the impact on the Contractor's costs, and the specific terms of the contract. Typically, revised rates are applied to the work affected by the Variation Order. However, this can vary based on the contract's terms and the nature of the variations. For contracts with significant scope increases, as in your case where quantities have doubled, it's crucial to review the specific Variation and Adjustment clauses in your contract. Consideration should be given to the impact on overheads, material costs, and any economies of scale that might apply. The decision on whether to renegotiate initial tender rates and how to apply revised rates (to VO work only or both VO and BOQ work) should be guided by the contract terms and the practicalities of the project.

The dispute over the interpretation of Sub-clause 14.6 in the FIDIC 1999 Yellow Book centers on whether the 'minimum amount of Interim Payment Certificates' condition applies to all interim payments or only to the last payment before issuing the Taking Over Certificate. Sub-clause 14.6 states that the Engineer is not obliged to issue an Interim Payment Certificate if its net amount (after retention and other deductions) is less than the minimum amount specified in the Appendix to Tender, prior to issuing the Taking Over Certificate for the Works. The key point of contention here is the interpretation of 'prior to issuing the Taking Over Certificate.' Contractor's Perspective: The Contractor argues that this clause refers specifically to the last IPC before the Taking Over Certificate is issued. Therefore, they believe that the minimum amount condition should not apply to their current interim payment request, which is not the last one before taking over. Employer's Perspective: The Employer, on the other hand, interprets this clause as applicable to all interim payments made throughout the contract execution, not just the final one before taking over. They argue that any IPC submitted during the contract that falls below the 1% threshold of the Accepted Contract Amount should not be issued. The FIDIC Contracts Guide for the 1999 suite indeed suggests that the Engineer should not seek to minimize certification unnecessarily. However, the specific wording in Sub-clause 14.6 and the Appendix to Tender in your contract seems to support the Employer's interpretation. It implies that any IPC, not just the final one before taking over, should meet the minimum amount threshold. To resolve this impasse, a detailed review of the contract's Particular Conditions and the Appendix to Tender is necessary. The intent behind the 'minimum amount of IPC' condition should be clarified, considering the overall contract administration and payment process outlined in the contract. If the contract language is ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations, it may be beneficial to seek a mutual agreement or third-party legal interpretation to resolve the dispute. In summary, while the Contractor's interpretation focuses on the last IPC before taking over, the Employer's view encompasses all IPCs during the contract execution. The resolution hinges on the specific contract language and the intent behind the 'minimum amount of IPC' condition as agreed upon by both parties.

In addressing the dispute concerning the interpretation of Clause 13.1 in the FIDIC 1999 Yellow Book, it's important to clarify the rights and obligations of the parties involved, particularly regarding Variations and Adjustments. Under Clause 13.1, it is stated that a Variation shall not comprise the omission of any work intended to be carried out by others. This means that the Engineer cannot omit work from the Contractor's scope if it is meant to be executed by another party for the Employer. However, the Engineer does have the authority to omit works from the Contractor's scope if those works are no longer required for the completion of the project under the Contract. In your case, where the Employer has exercised their right to delete an item from the scope of work, and this item was subcontracted by your Client to a subcontractor, several key points need consideration: Scope of the Engineer's Authority: If the omitted work was initially part of the Contractor's scope and is not intended to be carried out by another party for the Employer, the Engineer can instruct this omission under the Contract. This is in line with Sub-Clause 3.1, which outlines the Engineer's duties and authority. Impact on the Subcontractor: The subcontractor's objection, based on their interpretation of Clause 13.1, needs to be evaluated in the context of the Contract's terms. If the work was omitted as per the Engineer's valid instruction and not intended to be carried out by another party, the subcontractor is generally obliged to comply with this change. Entitlement to Compensation: If the omission of work affects the Contractor's costs or scope of work, the Contractor may be entitled to compensation. This would be in accordance with Sub-Clause 12.4 (Omissions) and the Variation Procedure outlined in Sub-Clause 13.3. The Contractor should follow the prescribed procedure for claiming any additional costs or savings resulting from the omission. Subcontracting Considerations: As per Sub-Clause 4.4, the Contractor's decision to subcontract certain works does not alter their responsibilities under the Contract. The Contractor must obtain the Engineer's prior consent for subcontracting, unless otherwise stated in the Particular Conditions. In conclusion, the Employer's right to omit work under Clause 13.1 should be exercised in accordance with the Contract's terms and the Engineer's authority. The subcontractor, being under the Contractor's management, is typically required to adhere to these changes, subject to the Contractor's entitlement to claim adjustments if applicable.

In the context of the FIDIC Yellow Book, Clause 14.7 outlines the Employer's obligations regarding payment to the Contractor. Specifically: Payment of Interim Certificates: The Employer is required to pay the amount certified in each Interim Payment Certificate within 56 days after the Engineer receives the Statement and supporting documents from the Contractor. Actions on Delayed Payment: If the Employer fails to make the payment within the 56-day period, the Contractor has several options: Financing Charges: The Contractor is entitled to receive financing charges on the delayed payment. These charges start accruing from the due date specified in Clause 14.7 and are compounded monthly. The rate for these charges is typically defined in the Contract, often based on a certain percentage above the discount rate of the central bank of the currency of payment. Suspension of Work: As per the provisions of the contract, the Contractor may have the right to suspend work if the Employer fails to pay within the stipulated time. This is a significant decision and should be considered in the context of the overall project and contractual relationships. Termination of Contract: In extreme cases, if the delayed payment significantly affects the Contractor's ability to continue the work, the Contractor may consider terminating the contract. This option should be exercised with caution and typically after seeking legal advice. It's important for the Contractor to communicate clearly with the Employer and the Engineer regarding any delayed payments and to document all correspondences and actions taken. The Contractor's entitlement to financing charges and other remedies should be in accordance with the specific terms and conditions of the contract. In summary, under the FIDIC Yellow Book, the Contractor is protected against delayed payments through entitlement to financing charges, and in certain situations, has the right to suspend work or terminate the contract.

In the context of the FIDIC 1999 Red Book, the question of whether a Contractor can increase overhead and profit due to an extension of the project completion date requires careful consideration of the contract terms and the specific circumstances leading to the extension. Under the FIDIC 1999 Red Book, the overhead and profit percentage is typically agreed upon in the contract and is expected to cover the Contractor's general costs and margin for the original contract duration. If the project completion date is extended, as in your case from 31 August 2023 to 21 November 2023, the Contractor may face additional overhead costs. The Contractor can claim these additional overhead costs if they can demonstrate that the extension of time, or other unforeseen circumstances beyond their original scope (like additional works), directly resulted in increased costs. This claim would be in line with the principles of Clause 12.3, which deals with the evaluation of variations, and Clause 20.1, which covers Contractor's claims. However, it's important to note that simply claiming an increase in overhead and profit is not sufficient. The Contractor must provide detailed justification and evidence of the actual additional costs incurred due to the extension. This could include extended site office costs, additional staff costs, extended equipment rental, and other relevant expenses. The increase in overhead and profit is not automatic and is subject to agreement or determination by the Engineer under the contract. The Engineer will assess the Contractor's claim based on the contractual provisions and the actual impact of the extension or other variations on the Contractor's costs. In summary, while the Contractor under the FIDIC 1999 Red Book can claim additional overhead costs due to an extension of time, this claim must be substantiated with concrete evidence of the additional expenses incurred. The agreed percentage for overhead and profit in the contract serves as a baseline, and any increase would need to be justified and agreed upon as per the contract's provisions.

In your query regarding delay damages under Sub-Clause 8.7 of the FIDIC 1999 contracts, you've raised an important point about the applicability of these damages in situations where the Employer has not actually suffered any loss due to the delay. Sub-Clause 8.7 stipulates delay damages for the Contractor's failure to complete the Works within the stipulated Time for Completion (as per Sub-Clause 8.2). These damages are typically pre-determined and stated in the Appendix to Tender (for the Red and Yellow Books) or the Particular Conditions (for the Silver Book) as a daily rate, with a maximum limit often expressed as a percentage of the Accepted Contract Amount. The key aspect of delay damages, also known as liquidated damages, is that they are agreed upon in advance as a reasonable estimate of the damages that would be suffered by the Employer due to delay. They are not necessarily a direct reflection of actual losses incurred. This means that even if the Employer does not suffer actual damage, as in your case where there was no immediate need for the new landfill, the Contractor may still be liable to pay delay damages if the completion is delayed beyond the agreed Time for Completion. The rationale behind this is that liquidated damages provide a clear, agreed-upon consequence for delays, simplifying the process of dealing with such delays without the need to prove actual damages. This is akin to a contractual agreement where certain outcomes (like delay damages) are predetermined for specific breaches (such as delayed completion), regardless of the actual impact. Regarding court decisions, the application of liquidated damages and their enforceability can vary depending on the jurisdiction. In many legal systems, courts uphold liquidated damages as long as they are a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not punitive in nature. However, specific cases from courts that directly align with your situation might require a detailed legal search and analysis, possibly involving a legal expert familiar with construction law in the relevant jurisdiction. In summary, under FIDIC 1999 contracts, the Contractor may be liable to pay delay damages for late completion even if the Employer does not suffer actual damage. This is a fundamental principle of liquidated damages in contract law, emphasizing the importance of adhering to contractually agreed timelines.

In addressing your query about the priority of documents in the FIDIC Red Book 1999, particularly concerning the Bill of Quantities (BOQ), it's important to understand the hierarchy established in Sub-Clause 1.5. This clause outlines the order of precedence for interpreting contract documents. As per Sub-Clause 1.5, the priority of documents is as follows: (a) Contract Agreement, (b) Letter of Acceptance, (c) Letter of Tender, (d) Particular Conditions, (e) General Conditions, (f) Specification, (g) Drawings, and (h) Schedules, including the BOQ. This means that while the BOQ is an integral part of the contract, it is placed lower in the hierarchy compared to other documents like the Specifications and Drawings. The BOQ, as defined in Sub-Clause 1.1.1.10, is included in the Schedules and is primarily used for the valuation of variations as per Sub-Clause 12.3. It's important to note that the quantities in the BOQ are considered estimated quantities (Sub-Clause 14.1(c)) and are not definitive for the actual work required. The BOQ serves as a basis for the measurement and valuation of the work (Sub-Clauses 12.1 and 12.2), but it does not override the Specifications and Drawings in terms of contractual priority. Furthermore, the pricing in the BOQ is part of the contractor's tender offer. While the BOQ provides a framework for pricing, it's the contractor's responsibility to price the items accurately. The BOQ's role in interim payments and variations is also significant, as outlined in Sub-Clauses 14.1 and 14.4, but it does not take precedence over the Specifications and Drawings in interpreting the contract. In conclusion, while the BOQ is a crucial document for the financial aspects of the contract, its priority is below that of the Specifications and Drawings in the FIDIC Red Book 1999. This hierarchy ensures that technical and qualitative aspects of the work, as detailed in the Specifications and Drawings, guide the project execution, with the BOQ primarily serving for valuation and payment purposes.

Your understanding of Sub-clause 12.3 in the FIDIC Red Book 1999 is fundamentally correct, focusing on how new rates or prices are determined when there's a significant change in the quantity of work. This clause is pivotal in ensuring that the contract price reflects the actual work done, especially when there are substantial deviations from the initial quantities specified in the Bill of Quantities. To address your specific query: When the quantity of an item increases by more than 50% and this increase also exceeds 1% of the initial contract price, a new rate or price becomes applicable. This new rate applies to the entire quantity that exceeds the original contract quantity, not just the amount over the 25% limit. This interpretation is based on the conditions outlined in Sub-clause 12.3(a), which include a change in quantity by more than 10% and a cost impact exceeding 0.01% of the Accepted Contract Amount. Additionally, it's important to consider Clause 13 [Variations and Adjustments] in this context. Clause 13 deals with variations, which are changes or modifications to the work initially agreed upon in the contract. If the work is instructed under Clause 13 and no rate or price for this new item of work is specified in the contract, or if no specified rate or price is appropriate due to the nature of the work, then a new rate or price must be derived. This derivation will take into account any relevant rates or prices in the contract, with reasonable adjustments reflecting the nature of the variation. In summary, the new rate or price determined under Sub-clause 12.3 is applicable to all quantities that exceed the original contract quantities, considering the thresholds specified. This ensures that any significant variations in quantity, whether due to changes in the scope of work or other factors, are adequately compensated. As always, the specific details of your contract and the context of your project should guide the application of these clauses.

In the scenario you've described, where the project experienced a 6-month delay without any formal extension of time or communication regarding liquidated damages, the situation becomes quite nuanced under FIDIC terms. Firstly, under Sub-clause 8.7 of the FIDIC General Conditions, the Employer does have the right to apply delay damages as specified in the Appendix to Tender. However, the process isn't just about enforcing this clause. The Employer must adhere to the procedures outlined in Sub-clause 2.5, which deals with the Employer's claims. While it's true that Sub-clause 2.5 doesn't explicitly state a time limit for the Employer to make a claim for delay damages, the principles of fairness and timely notification typically implied in contracts should be considered. The lack of communication from the consultant or client and the issuance of the preliminary handover certificate without mentioning the delay or liquidated damages could potentially be interpreted as an implicit waiver of the right to enforce delay damages at this stage. However, this interpretation can vary based on the jurisdiction and specific contract terms. Regarding the final payment certificate and unresolved variation orders, these elements add another layer of complexity. The final settlement of accounts, including the final payment certificate, often provides an opportunity to address all outstanding claims and adjustments, including delay damages. However, the Employer's right to claim delay damages at this stage might be contested, especially if they failed to communicate their intention to do so earlier. In summary, while the Employer technically retains the right to claim delay damages at any time as per Sub-clause 2.5, the specific circumstances of your case, including the lack of timely communication and the issuance of the preliminary handover certificate, could influence the enforceability of such a claim. It's advisable to seek legal counsel to assess the situation based on the contract's terms and applicable law.

Thank you for your insightful question regarding Extensions of Time (EOT) in the FIDIC Yellow Book 1999. When a contractor encounters a delay, they should notify the Engineer as outlined in Clause 20.1. The Engineer is then expected to respond within a reasonable timeframe as per Clause 3.5. If delays occur after the original completion date, the contractor may still be eligible for an EOT, provided the delay isn't their fault. It's important to note that if the Engineer doesn't address the EOT claim within the contract duration, enforcing liquidated damages can be challenging. EOTs are generally granted in response to a contractor's claim, and not arbitrarily. The issue of prolongation costs is complex and typically depends on the specifics of the situation, including any variations and adjustments under Clause 13. In cases of prolonged suspension, as detailed in Clause 8.11, the contractor has specific options to consider. Each case needs to be evaluated based on its unique circumstances and the relevant contractual clauses.

The FIDIC contracts usually involve "the Engineer", who has a defined role to play during construction - and we assume this is the "different Consulting Engineer" referred to. The "Designing Engineer" could be an engineer engaged by the Employer just to design the Works (with the other Engineer taking over to supervise the Works during construction) - or he could be an engineer engaged by the Contractor if it is a design-build or turnkey type project. In the first case, presumably, he would be engaged under the FIDIC White Book (or something similar) and his terms of reference under that should define his role (if any) during the construction period. In the second case (if he is engaged by the Contractor), he will presumably be considered to be a part of the Contractor's organisation carrying, in effect, the Contractor's responsibilities in the Contract for design.

The terms "Takeover" and "Handover" are often used in the context of construction contracts and project management, and they refer to distinct phases in the contract life cycle. Understanding the difference between these two terms is crucial for both contractors and employers to ensure smooth project execution and compliance with contractual obligations. Here's a breakdown of the differences: Takeover Definition: Takeover typically refers to the process where the employer or client takes over the possession of the works from the contractor. This is often formalized through a "Taking Over Certificate" issued by the engineer or project manager. When It Occurs: Takeover usually happens when the works, or a section of the works, are deemed complete by the contractor and have passed any required inspections or tests. It signifies that the works are ready for their intended use. Contractual Implications: The issuance of the Taking Over Certificate has several contractual implications. It often marks the start of the Defects Liability Period, changes the responsibility for care of the works from the contractor to the employer, and may trigger final payments or release of retention monies. FIDIC Context: In FIDIC contracts, Clause 10 often deals with the Employer's Taking Over. The process involves the contractor notifying the engineer when they believe the works are complete, followed by an inspection and the issuance of the Taking Over Certificate. Handover Definition: Handover refers to the final stage of the project where the contractor hands over the completed project to the employer, along with all necessary documents, manuals, warranties, and maintenance instructions. When It Occurs: This phase occurs at the very end of the project life cycle, often after the Defects Liability Period, when all final inspections are completed, and any defects have been rectified. Contractual Implications: The handover process typically signifies the formal completion of the contract. It includes the transfer of all relevant documentation and often coincides with the issuance of the Final Certificate, which signifies the settlement of all contractual obligations and payments. FIDIC Context: In FIDIC contracts, the handover process may be covered under various clauses, including those related to defects liability and final account settlement. It is a comprehensive process ensuring that the employer has all the information and documentation necessary for the operation and maintenance of the facility. Key Differences Phase in Project Lifecycle: Takeover occurs earlier, when the works are ready for use but may still have minor defects. Handover is the final step, marking the complete fulfillment of the contract. Documentation and Certificates: Takeover involves the Taking Over Certificate, while handover involves the transfer of all project-related documents and often the Final Certificate. Defects Liability: Takeover marks the beginning of the Defects Liability Period, whereas handover typically signifies its conclusion. Understanding these differences is essential for proper contract management and ensuring that both parties fulfill their respective obligations at each stage of the project.

info@wisdomwaveshub.com

Thank you for the comment and support.

Thank you

You're welcome!

I intended to make education fun, but I failed to check the final edit. I will avoid repeating this mistake. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I hope you enjoyed the content.

Thank you so much for your kind words and your engaging question! I'm thrilled that you're finding my videos helpful. 🙌 Regarding your question about Clause 2.1 of the FIDIC Yellow Book 1999, I'm delighted to let you know that I'll be diving deep into this clause in an upcoming video. It's an intriguing aspect that many professionals like yourself are curious about. In that video, I'll break down the nuances of Clause 2.1 and discuss what a Contractor can claim under this clause, including scenarios like the one you mentioned about hiring plant and waiting for site access. So, stay tuned for that insightful episode! If you haven't already, make sure to subscribe and hit the notification bell so you don't miss out on any updates. Thanks again for your support, and I look forward to sharing more contract insights with you soon! 📚🎬

It took me 6 months to compile the notes, but I'll upload the requested clause as soon as possible.

Ok

Hi, it is very time consuming to create a video. With the help of our professional group of expertise, we have explained the clause 2.1. We will update the flow charts and sample letters soon. wisdomwaveshub.com/. Please visit our website for more detailed explanation. Thank you.❤

ua-cam.com/video/7A6nAVjDKYQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=GrowthMindsetCo.