Although Clause 17 is titled ‘Risk and Responsibility’ it also sets out other provisions relating to indemnities, limitation of liability and, unusually, the specific topic of intellectual and industrial property rights. The clause provides that the Contractor assumes responsibility and bears the risk for the care of the works during execution and for remedying any defects during the Defects Notification Period. Risk transfers to the Employer on issue of the Taking–Over Certificate to the extent of works defined as being completed. Generally, in construction contracts ‘risk’ is understood to mean an event or circumstance which causes delay, loss or damage to the Works. A risk can be said to be Employer caused, Contractor caused or neutral. The purpose of risk allocation is to determine which party bears the risk for such events. The Contractor may be required to remediate the damage at his own cost or the Employer may be required to pay for the damaged works. It has been stated that the “FIDIC standard forms are generally recognised as being well balanced because both parties bear parts of the risks arising from the project.”
Click through to read Corbett & Co.'s helpful commentary on FIDIC Red Book 1999 book - Clause 7
Clause 7 deals with a variety of issues relating to Plant Materials and Workmanship. All sub clauses have been subject to some change – in several cases of significance.
Click through to read Corbett & Co.'s helpful commentary on FIDIC 1999 book Clause 15
Clause 4 sets out various obligations which fall on the Contractor under the Contract and which cannot easily be classified elsewhere. The obligations under Clause 4 are of a wide range covering 24 different topics. Sub-Clause 4.1 sets out the Contractor’s general obligation to carry out his duties in accordance with the contract. Clause 4 of the FIDIC Red Book 1999 amalgamates various Contractor obligations under one provision. However this Clause 4 is not exclusive as there are also other Contractor obligations scattered throughout the Contract. Other significant general obligations which could equally have been included in Clause 4 (and which should be read in conjunction with this Clause 4) are as follows: • Sub-Clause 1.3 [Communications] • Sub-Clause 1.7 [Assignment] • Sub-Clause 1.8 [Care and Supply of Documents] • Sub-Clause 1.9 [Delayed Drawings or Instructions] • Sub-Clause 1.10 [Employer’s Use of Contractor’s Documents] • Sub-Clause 1.12 [Confidential Details] • Sub-Clause 1.13 [Compliance with Laws] • Clause 6 [Staff and Labour] • Clause 7 [Plant, Materials and Workmanship] • Sub-Clause 8.2 [Time for Completion] • Sub-Clause 8.3 [Programme]
FIDIC 1999 is a re-measurement contract so that the Employer takes the risk of variations to the quantities and, in certain cases, to the rates and prices which may be applied for the work executed. If the Employer wishes to employ a Contractor on a lump-sum or cost plus basis then this clause needs to be deleted. Sub-Clause 12.1 deals with the measurement of the works. Sub-Clause 12.2 does not include a reference to any standard method of measurement but states that the works are to be measured in accordance with the Bill of Quantities or other applicable Schedules. The lack of reference to a particular standard method of measurement has been criticised. Sub-Clause 12.3 deals with evaluating the appropriate rate or price for the works. There are three methods of evaluating the works:- a) The rate or price specified for such item in the Contract; but if there is no such item b) The rate or price specified for similar work. c) However, in certain specified circumstances, a new rate or price shall be appropriate. Sub-Clause 12.4 deals with the valuation of omissions from the Work. As this is a re-measurement contract there is no warranty that the quantities measured in the Bill of Quantities are accurate. Nael Bunni suggests that when quantities within the Bill of Quantities are exceeded then payment should be at the rates set out in the Bill. There have been some cases where the courts have adopted differing approaches; however, in those cases the wording of the remeasurement clause differed to that within FIDIC. These decisions have been described by Dr. Bunni as being controversial.