Under both the contractual process and subsequent formal dispute resolution proceedings, contemporary records form a critical part of the evidence to be utilised in evaluating the contractual entitlement. The importance of good record keeping – by both contractors and employer’s agents or engineers—cannot be overstated.

The maintenance of ‘contemporary records’ is an important risk management strategy under any form of contract or subcontract. Under the FIDIC suite of contracts, the failure to maintain contemporary records can severely prejudice or completely extinguish a contractor’s entitlement to additional time or cost.

Sub-clause 53.2 of the FIDIC Conditions of Contract 1987 (the ‘old Red Book’) provides that ‘the Contractor shall keep such contemporary records as may reasonably be necessary to support any claim he may subsequently wish to make.’ Of course, in the event that a contractor subsequently seeks to make a claim, the ‘contemporary records’ are often insufficient or are supplemented by subsequent evidence, such as witness statements from site staff, prepared a long time after the event and in contemplation of the claim.

The issue of what constitutes ‘contemporary records’ and whether or not ‘contemporary records’ can be supplemented by further evidence was considered in the often cited case of Attorney-General for the Falkland Islands v Gordon Forbes Construction (Falklands) Limited (No 2), before the Falklands Islands Supreme Court.

In this case, the court was asked to decide whether or not a witness statement prepared for formal dispute resolution proceedings (significantly after the event giving rise to the claim) could be used to prove a claim under an old Red Book contract where no contemporary records existed. In the judgement on this issue, the court stated that ‘contemporary records’ meant:

‘original or primary documents…prepared at or about the time giving rise to a claim, whether by or for the contractor or employer.’

The court also said that contemporary records does not include witness statements produced after the event, as such documents cannot be said to be original or primary documents prepared at the time. In so doing, the court confirmed the fear of the contractor – no contemporaneous documents means no entitlement.

The judgement in this case stands as a stark reminder of the criticality of ‘contemporary records.’

The situation under the FIDIC Conditions of Contract 1999 (‘the new Red Book’) may not be as desperate as under the old Red Book, but contemporary records remain critically important and the failure to maintain such records still has the capacity to seriously affect the contractor’s rights of recovery.

The new Red Book contains a similar obligation under sub-clause 20.1 as was imposed under sub-clause 53.4 of the old Red Book. Sub-clause 20.1 states, in part, that:

‘the Contractor shall keep such contemporary records as may be necessary to substantiate any claim…’ Sub-clause 20.1 also states that ‘if the Contractor fails to comply with this or any Sub-Clause in relation to any claim, any extension of time and/or additional payment shall take account of the extent (if any) to which the failure has prevented or prejudiced proper investigation of the claim…’

While the Gordon Forbes case is authority for the proposition that failure to maintain contemporary records under the old Red Book may extinguish the contractor’s entitlement, failure to maintain contemporary records under the new Red Book may also prejudice the contractor’s rights or ability to recover. It is worth noting that the emphasis and value of witness evidence will of course be different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In civil law jurisdiction such as the UAE, for example, witness evidence may be more compelling than in common law jurisdictions. These differences do not affect the importance of maintaining contemporary records.

So at the risk of labouring the point, the moral is simple – record what happened, when it happened. While the tasks of maintaining a site diary, staying on top of correspondence, and keeping minutes of meetings may appear to be an inefficient use of site staff and managerial resources, such ‘contemporary records’ can be the key to securing contractual entitlements.

By Sachin Kerur and William Marshall

“Tests on Completion

The first 30 days shall be a monitoring period during which the Contractor sets up the operation of the plant and conducts his own water quality tests to confirm that the final effluent consent has been met. At the end of this period the Contractor shall notify the Engineer that the plant is complete and meeting the Process Guarantee which then shall be met by a further 30 consecutive days before Taking Over can take place.”

We have met the final 30 consecutive days successfully and want taking over. The Employer says we must complete the 90 days which takes us outside of the construction period and hence delay damages are being threatened.

I say we have satisfied the contract at the end of the 30 consecutive days and we should get Take Over even though it is not 90 days.

Have you any idea if we are right in our assessment?

Answer:
Firstly, a couple of brief provisos. I assume that you have made no amendments to the Yellow Book that affect this issue. I’m also assuming that, as you say, otherwise the works have indeed all been completed in accordance with the Contract.

Have the Tests on Completion been passed and are the Works ready for Taking Over?

Obviously your argument is that having satisfied the first 30 day monitoring period and then completed the further 30 consecutive day period and having notified the Engineer that the plant is complete and meeting the Process Guarantee, you have therefore satisfied the requirements for completion and Take Over.

Clause 10 – which deals with Taking Over – says that the Works must have been completed in accordance with the Contract and that a Taking-Over Certificate must have been issued. The Employer must issue such certificate within 28 days of an application if the Works are substantially complete in accordance with the Contract (i.e. apart from minor outstanding work and defects not substantially affecting the Works); otherwise the certificate is deemed to have been issued.

Crucially, “completion” for these purposes includes:

• achieving the passing of the Tests on Completion; and
• “completing all work which is stated in the Contract as being required for the Works to be considered completed for the purposes of taking over”.

So it all comes down to (1) what is required to achieve passing of the Tests on Completion and (2) what the Contract states needs to be completed to achieve take over.

Under the Yellow Book, “Tests on Completion” means “those tests which are specified in the Contract or agreed by both Parties…and which are carried out under Clause 9 [Tests on Completion] before the Works…are taken over by the Employer”.

Clause 9 goes on to spell out the process for carrying out these tests, which falls into 3 stages – pre-commissioning tests, commissioning tests and trail operation – the latter which is intended to show that the plant is operating reliably.

Ambiguous provisions

I think that the Engineer/Employer will forcefully argue that waiting for the 90th day to elapse is part of the “trial operation” and is required for you to pass the Tests on Completion. I agree that there is some ambiguity in the wording in Volume 3 of the Contract as it states: “At the end of this period the Contractor shall notify the Engineer that the plant is complete and meeting the Process Guarantee which then shall be met by a further 30 consecutive days before Taking Over can take place.” However, my own view is that the drafting of the full testing period is clear and explicit – “The test on completion duration shall be 90 days“. Bearing in mind that FIDIC explicitly states “The documents forming the Contract are to be taken as mutually explanatory of one another” I do not think that this wording is actually inconsistent with the words: “which then shall be met by a further 30 consecutive days before Taking Over can take place”. In my view, all the Contract is saying is that the actual commissioning tests period is 30 days but there is then a further 30 day trial operation period to ensure the plant is operating reliably. This is also consistent with the description of Tests on Completion (and the 3 stages) described in Clause 9.1.
Of course, it is open to you to request clarification on this point from the Engineer. Clause 1.5.2 of the General Conditions provides that: “If an ambiguity or discrepancy is found in the documents, the Engineer shall issue any necessary clarification or instruction.”

You do not mention if the Engineer in this case is an independent engineer or is part of the Employer organisation. Whichever is the case, he may well come to the same view as the Employer and, in my opinion, this would be consistent with:

• the express wording (“The test on completion duration shall be 90 days“);
• interpreting the documents as mutually explanatory of each other; and
• the 3 stage process of Tests on Completion which includes a “trial operation”.

Whether or not the Engineer is truly independent, Clause 3.5 applies when a party asks the Engineer for clarification and provides that he must consult with each party in an endeavour to reach agreement. If agreement is not reached, “the Engineer shall make a fair determination in accordance with the Contract, taking due regard of all relevant circumstances.”

The Engineer must give notice to both parties of the determination with supporting particulars. Each Party shall give effect to each agreement or determination unless and until revised under Clause 20 (Claims, Disputes and Arbitration).

What do you do now?

Whilst I think that the correct interpretation is that the testing period is the full 90 days, I am conscious that complying with this period will put you in delay and at risk of liquidated damages for delay. Therefore in practical terms, I think that you should at least make the argument that you have already substantially completed. I think that there is sufficient ambiguity in the Volume 3 wording to argue that the Tests on Completion have been completed and that you are entitled to issue of the Taking-Over Certificate. Therefore you should apply for issue of this certificate if you haven’t already done so (although if you haven’t already done so you will still have to wait at least 28 days before the Engineer is obliged to issue the certificate or you can argue that it is deemed to be issued).

Under Clause 10.1 [Taking Over of the Works and Sections], the Engineer is deemed to have issued a Taking Over Certificate if he fails either to issue a TO Certificate or rejects the Contractor’s application for a TO Certificate within a period of 28 days after receiving the Contractor’s application.

You have not said whether or not the Engineer has rejected the application. If he has not, and more than 28 days has elapsed since you issued it, then the TO Certificate will be deemed to have been issued on the last day of the 28-day period.

Of course, if you applied for the TO Certificate right before the end of the 30+30 days, then the Engineer has up to 28 days to issue or reject, and you are almost in the same position as if your completion test phase was 90 days. If you applied substantially earlier than that then it will make a bigger difference and might be the difference between completing on time or late.

If you are late, then there probably is no harm in making the application for a Taking-Over Certificate. Note that in accordance with Clause 10.1.3(b) of the General Conditions, if the Engineer wishes to reject the application, he has to give reasons and specify the work that is required to be done by the Contractor to enable the TO Certificate to be issued. Even if the Engineer has purported to reject your application, you might be able to argue that he has not done so in accordance with the contract, because he has not specified the work that is required to be done in order to enable the TO Certificate to be issued. Of course in my view, he is likely to simply point to the further 30 day trail operation period under the Contract.

Delay to Testing

Whilst I do not think you have a basis of claim (as my interpretation of the Contract is that you have not yet fully passed the Tests on Completion), if the Employer’s insistence on you waiting until the end of 90 days after the start of the testing period is not permitted under the Contract, there is potentially the right to claim for delay. Clause 7.4.5 provides that “If the Contractor suffers delay and/or incurs Cost … as a result of a delay for which the Employer is responsible, the Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer and shall be entitled to claim both an extension of time and “payment of any such Cost plus reasonable profit, which shall be included in the Contract Price” (Clause 7.4.5(b)). Equally there is the ground in Clause 8.4.1 (e), being “any delay, impediment or prevention caused by or attributable to the Employer, the Employer’s Personnel, or the Employer’s other contractors on the Site.” The Employer’s Personnel, as defined, includes the Engineer.

Any right to claim will be subject to strict compliance with FIDIC’s notice provisions in Sub-Clause 20.1 (Contractor’s Claims)). I have previously stressed the importance of getting your notice exactly right in the previous Q&A; click here to read more. After receiving this notice, the Engineer shall proceed in accordance with Sub-Clause 3.5 (Determinations) (see above) to agree or determine these matters.

One final note

Finally, do you have any minutes or notes of any discussions with the Employer about completion testing? If you do, have a look at them to see whether they clarify the position. Obviously it will be helpful if you have evidence that you and the Employer intended the tests to consist of the 30-day monitoring period plus the second consecutive 30-day period only. It is worth noting that FIDIC Yellow Book does not include an “entire agreement” clause precluding extra contractual documents/negotiations in interpreting the Contract. If you have clear evidence that the parties both intended the completion tests to last for 30 days plus 30 days (only) then you may be able to claim successfully that the figure 90 was inserted into the contract by mistake instead of 60, in the event that the dispute goes to arbitration.

]]> http://kluwerconstructionblog.com/2010/04/14/tests-on-completion-under-the-fidic-yellow-book/feed/ 0 http://kluwerconstructionblog.com/2010/02/16/a-new-year-brings-fresh-thinking-from-fidic-and-new-developments/ http://kluwerconstructionblog.com/2010/02/16/a-new-year-brings-fresh-thinking-from-fidic-and-new-developments/#comments Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:33:03 +0000 Sarah Thomas http://kluwerconstructionblog.com/?p=380 Continue reading →]]> I thought that I would hail in the new year with an update on some interesting construction developments. Put it down to a period of reflection over the Christmas break! As I want to cover a number of areas, I have split this update into 2 postings.

In this first update, I am going to cover the latest FIDIC news and the new Bribery Bill currently going through the UK parliament. In my next posting I will look at two recent construction cases in English law, the first covering recoverability of damages and the English “remoteness” rule, the second covering treatment of contractual notice bars for claims.

Firstly, on FIDIC. I presented at the annual FIDIC conference in London in December of last year and can report some interesting developments:

FIDIC have just published a new Subcontract form (termed the Conditions of Sub-Contract for Construction). This is specifically designed as a construction only subcontract – to be used by main contractors operating under either the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction for Building and Engineering Works designed by the Employer (known as the “Red Book”) or the Multilateral Development Bank’s Harmonised Edition of these FIDIC Conditions of Contract. The subcontract is drafted very much on the basis of a “total pass down of risk”, although there are some interesting features (particularly from an English law perspective).

For example, the payment provisions are effectively tied to payment under the “Main Contract” and include “pay when paid” clauses (Sub-Clause 14.6 (c)) in that the Contractor can withhold monies where “the Employer has failed to make payment in full to the Contractor in respect of those amounts…”. Of course, this protection will not apply where the reason for non-certification under the Main Contract is because of Contractor default or the Employer’s insolvency. Whilst common in subcontracts in Europe, any construction contract signed in England and Wales is subject to the UK Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act and this prohibits pay when paid provisions. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the market – readers will no doubt be conscious of the current harsher market conditions for contractors generally – so this may be more palatable to subcontractors in these straitened times. What it means in practice is that subcontractors will have to take a good deal more notice of what the main contract says about payment, and certification of payments, to ensure they are comfortable with these risks flowing down into their subcontracts.

As for other key features,

• Whilst the underlying principle is direct risk pass down, there is no general provision (as appears in many “pass-down” subcontracts) saying, for example, that the Sub-Contractor shall carry out the Sub-Contract Works such that he does not put the Contractor in breach of the Main Contract.

• The Sub-Contract assumes that the Main Contract will be the FIDIC Red Book and directly refers to Main Contract Clauses. Of course, the numbering will not necessarily work if the Main Contract is either not FIDIC or is an amended form of FIDIC.

• Not surprisingly, there are provisions allowing for immediate termination where the Main Contract terminates (Clause 15). Where the Main Contract is terminated for default the Sub-Contractor only gets the value of work and documents produced up to the date of termination (less amounts recovered by the Employer and any other losses and damages incurred by the Contractor and, notably in my view, its other sub-contractors). If not in breach, the Sub-Contractor gets paid the value of works/documents to date, demobilisation and reasonable repatriation costs, any other costs “reasonably incurred” in expectation of completing the Sub-Contract Works plus loss of profit. This is all fairly standard, although I suspect a number of main contractors may wish to curb the ‘loss of profit’ claim. However, the biggest potential issue is I think Sub-Clause 15.6. This allows the Sub-Contractor to terminate where there would be a right to do so under the Main Contract. The clause simply refers to the termination events in the Main Contract equally applying to the Sub-Contract. I query whether this actually works or makes the Contractor’s other termination rights sufficiently clear. It would be preferable to spell them out for such an important clause.

FIDIC is also proposing to issue a new user guide to accompany the Design Build and Operate form (Gold Book). Just to remind readers, the current form (first published in September 2008) covers design, build and long term operation of facilities on green field sites. The new guide will include provisions allowing this to be used for brown field sites. No doubt FIDIC hope that this will lead to a much greater use of the Book as most DBO projects involve some element of upgrade of existing facilities alongside new build. However, as this form is still in its infancy I am yet to hear from anyone who has actually used this form (- readers please get in touch if you have), it remains to be seen whether this will lead to wholesale take up of this new form. I think one reason for the lack of use so far may be that the form has no provision for funding by the Contractor and so is not suitable for PPP projects.

At the same time, FIDIC are proposing a review of all the contract forms in their current “1999 Rainbow Suite” (i.e. principally the Red, Yellow and Silver Books) and plan to amend these in line with current business practices and in response to request for amendments over the last decade. For example, one likely amendment is to include the amendment FIDIC has already made to Sub-Clause 20.1 in the DBO form dealing with the procedure for Contractor’s claims. Just to recap, Sub-Clause 20.1 has always been a sticking point for contractors as it essentially precludes any entitlement to claim for time/money if the conditions of this clause are not strictly complied with. What the Gold Book has introduced is a slight relaxation of this absolute notice bar, allowing the Contractor to apply to the Dispute Adjudication Board for a ruling if he considers there are circumstances which justify the late submission of a notice. If the DAB agrees that in all the circumstances “it is fair and reasonable that the late submission be accepted”, it can overrule the 28 day notice limit.

FIDIC canvassed views at our London conference as to what other clauses should be amended. There were a number of requests for a review of the variations clause (Sub-Clause 13) and in particular to the right of the Contractor to payment for value engineering changes. Currently under all the forms, the Contractor bears the cost of any proposal and only if it is accepted by the Employer, does he then get remunerated. This has always been something of a disincentive to propose value added changes.

Before signing off on this first update, I would like to touch upon the Bribery Bill 2009 which is currently going through the UK Parliament. The reason this has been introduced is because the UK has come under foreign criticism from the Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD – see website), amongst others, because of its perceived failure to carry out its obligations under the OECD Convention, which the UK ratified in 1998. The new Act, if it becomes law, will impact upon all commercial organisations seeking contracts with the public sector both in the UK and abroad.

Key features to watch out for if you are a UK contractor are the proposed new offences of bribing a foreign public official and the corporate offence of failure to prevent bribery by persons working on behalf of the business, including employees, agents and subsidiaries (whether domestic or foreign). The corporate offence applies to companies or partnerships which are either formed under UK law or which carry on business in any part of the UK – in other words, it could also impact on foreign companies doing business in the UK. The offence is punishable by an unlimited fine for the company whilst company individuals with responsibility for anti-corruption measures face personal criminal liability and up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

It will be a defence to the corporate charge for a company to show that “adequate procedures” to prevent corruption were in place at the time. The Bill does not detail what “adequate procedures” means but this month the Government agreed to add an amendment that will require the Secretary of State to provide guidance on this. All UK companies and overseas companies doing business in the UK should probably review their internal procedures carefully and update training, policies and contracts of employment to reflect the new law.

Some of you may ask whether there is sufficient parliamentary time to push this through before the UK election (which most commentators are forecasting in early May this year). The current view is that while the Bill is generally understood to have cross-party support, timing is very tight as there are a number of further stages that the Bill must complete in the House of Commons before it can be passed into law. If the Bill is not passed in time, it will need to be re-introduced in the next Parliament.

Any thoughts on the latest FIDIC development or indeed on the UK’s proposed anti corruption measures are of course always welcome!

]]> http://kluwerconstructionblog.com/2010/02/16/a-new-year-brings-fresh-thinking-from-fidic-and-new-developments/feed/ 1 http://kluwerconstructionblog.com/2009/12/23/youre-creeping-me-out-design-creep-under-the-fidic-silver-book/ http://kluwerconstructionblog.com/2009/12/23/youre-creeping-me-out-design-creep-under-the-fidic-silver-book/#comments Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:38:49 +0000 Sarah Thomas http://kluwerconstructionblog.com/?p=298 Continue reading →]]> In the wake of the current downturn, employers will increasingly look for greater budget certainty under EPC or Turnkey contracts. This is where the contractor undertakes all tasks – design, construction, management etc – so that, upon completion, the employer merely needs to ‘turn the key’ and operation of the plant or building can begin immediately. The whole point is that the contractor assumes price risk in return for relative autonomy over how he delivers the project – provided of course he meets the employer’s output requirements. But often employers want not just price certainty but also to retain control over design approval and how the project is actually delivered. This can lead to claims of ‘design creep’ by the contractor when he perceives that the employer is trying to introduce design improvements under the guise of reviewing the contractor’s documents.

But what is ‘design creep’? Why are contractors upset at its use and are their concerns justified?

I will be concentrating on the provisions of the FIDIC Silver Book, although design creep is not something particular to the Silver Book, or indeed any construction standard form.

Sub-clause 5.2 of the Silver Book allows the Employer to review the Contractor’s Documents. Nothing controversial about that. But what happens if the Employer undertakes a design review and makes ‘comments’ on those documents? Will those comments amount to a “Variation” (entitling the Contractor to time and money)? Or will they be taken as something less than a Variation, so that any additional work will have to be absorbed into the Contractor’s schedule and budget? This is the classic example of “design creep”.

What can the Contractor do when he considers that a comment constitutes a variation?

The first question to ask is: Does the “comment” amount to a “variation” under the terms of the contract? A Variation is defined in the Silver Book as “any change to the Employer’s Requirements or the Works which is instructed or approved as a variation under Clause 13″. Clause 13 [Variations] may be initiated at any time, “either by an instruction or by a request for the Contractor to submit a proposal”. The Contractor is often put in a difficult position because he must execute each variation unless he promptly gives notice that he cannot implement it (because of lack of goods, increased risk to safety or suitability of the Works or to his ability to meet Performance Guarantees). Obviously the broader the Employer’s Requirements and the Works are described in the contract, the less likely it is that the comment will be seen as a change to the Employer’s Requirements or to the Works.

However, if the comment does require a clear change, the Contractor’s first step should be to write to the Employer asking him to confirm whether the comment amounts to an instruction to change the Works under clause 13.1.

The second step is to follow the requirements of sub-clause 20.1 [Contractor's Claims] and request the Employer to agree or determine adjustments to the Contract Price and the Schedule of Payments, proceeding in accordance with sub-clause 3.5 [Determinations].

But what if the comment does not amount to a ‘change’ as such. Is the Contractor still bound to follow it? This is the more difficult area. The Contractor could argue that the provision of comments that do not specify “non conformity with the Contract” is not a proper use of the review procedure under sub-clause 5.2. That clause only allows the Employer to give notice to the Contractor if a Contractor’s Document fails to comply with the Contract. There is a difference here between the FIDIC Silver and Yellow Books. The key difference is that the documents are submitted “for review and/or for approval” (if so specified) under Yellow but under Silver, they are submitted for review only. Thus under Silver, the argument can be made far more strongly that the Employer can only issue a notice if the documents don’t comply with the Contract. Under Yellow on the other hand, where a document is specified “for approval”, the Engineer can give notice of approval with or without comments. This is an important difference and is the reason why “design creep” may well be a bigger problem under the Yellow Book than under Silver. But under both contracts, it is important to remember that the Employer’s scope to review the Contractor’s documents is confined to issuing a notice that the document does not comply with the Contract. A Contractor would also be well advised to check the formalities for issuing instructions and variations under his contract – to see whether he does in fact have to implement the change. For example under the FIDIC contracts, an instruction must (1) be given in writing and (2) state the obligations to which it relates as well as the sub-clause in which the obligations are specified [Sub-clause 3.4].

No matter what approach the Contractor adopts, to the extent that the Contractor is making a claim under a FIDIC contract, he will have to comply with the provisions of sub-clause 20.1.

So, what has been your experience of design creep? Is it occurring more or less often? What do you see as the threshold that needs to be reached in order for a comment to turn into a Variation? I would be interested to hear your war stories.

]]> http://kluwerconstructionblog.com/2009/12/23/youre-creeping-me-out-design-creep-under-the-fidic-silver-book/feed/ 2