What Are The Differences Between FIDIC 1999 and 2017 Claims Resolution Procedures - Contract Bites

1/13/2021 What are the differences between FIDIC 1999 and 2017 claims resolution procedures?
- Contract Bites
What are the di erences between FIDIC

1999 and 2017 claims resolution
procedures?
16th September 2020
Most, if not all, large scale construction and engineering projects run into some form of delay
and/or budgetary issues. Whereby, contractors look to claim for additional money and time for
events they deem as the employer’s risk, whilst often employers look to claim for events, which
they deem, are the contractors risk.
This post will look at the contractual claim procedure under FIDIC Red Books 1999 and 2017, and
shall take into consideration the changes, which have occurred between the 1999, and 2017
versions.
Within the FIDIC forms of contract, they anticipate the most likely scenarios in which contractors
and employers make claims against one another.
The following is a list of contractors and employers relevant items to claim, using the FIDIC
de nitions and clauses.
https://contractbites.com/what-are-the-differences-between-fidic-1999-and-2017-claims-resolution-procedures/ 1/9
1/13/2021 What are the differences between FIDIC 1999 and 2017 claims resolution procedures? - Contract Bites
Some examples of contractors claim clauses:
Delayed Drawings or Instructions (Sub-Clause 1.9);

Right of access to the Site (Sub-Clause 2.1);
Unforeseeable Physical Conditions (Sub-Clause 4.12);
Extension of Time on Completion (Sub-Clause 8.5/8.5);
Delays caused by Authorities (Sub-Clause 8.5/8.6);
Consequences of Suspension (Sub-Clause 8.9/8.10);
Interference with Tests on Completion (Sub-Clause 10.3);
Right to Vary (Sub-Clause 13.1);
Variation Procedure (Sub-Clause 13.3);
Adjustments for changes in Legislation (Sub-Clause 13.7);
Contractor’s Entitlement to Suspend Work (Sub-Clause 16.1);
Consequences of Employer’s Risk (Sub-Clause 17.4/17.2); and
Consequences of Force Majeure (Sub-Clause 19.4/18.4).
Some examples of employer’s claim clauses:
Rejection and retesting of Works (Sub-Clause 7.5);

Delay or Liquidated Damages (Sub-Clause 8.7/8.8); and
Failure to remedy Defects (Sub-Clause 11.4)
As each construction project is unique, and with so many variables involved, there are always
deviations from the original construction plan. As shown above FIDIC has made provisions for
dealing with those deviations through de ned claim procedures.
The claims procedure is not meant to be confrontational (although each claim noti cation is
viewed that way) but it is aimed at resolving claims in an ef cient manner.
Claims Procedure
One should note that FIDIC 1999 has two separate claims procedures: the employer’s claims
procedure is under Sub-Clause 2.5; and the contractor’s claims procedure is under Sub-Clause 20.1.
FIDIC 2017 combine both the employer and the contractor’s claims procedures under Clause 20.
This section shall look at the claims procedure and steps of both contracts.
Contractor’s claim in FIDIC 1999
The contractor’s claims procedure under FIDIC 1999 are different to those of the employer.
The contractor is to comply with Sub-Clause 20.1, must, once the contractor considers himself to
be entitled to seek remedy to a claim event arising give notice of the claim event to the engineer,
as soon as practicable and not later than 28 days after the contractor became aware, or should
have become aware of the claim event or circumstance.
If the contractor does not give notice within the speci ed time period, the contractor shall not be
entitled to seek remedy, whether it is for an extension of time or for additional payment and the
“Employer shall be discharged from all liability in connection with the claim”.
An example of this would be should the contractor not gain access to the site at the agreed date,
the contractor could argue that delayed access (under Sub-Clause 2.1) has delayed the start of the
works and will therefore delay completion.
If the contractor was to submit a notice “as soon as practicable” and within 28 days from the date
that the site access should have been provided, then the contractor is entitled to pursue a claim
for time and/or money. If the contractor fails to submit such notice within the prescribed time
then it may lose its right to claim such a remedy.
Once the contractor has submitted a notice in accordance with the above provision, the
contractor is to submit a “fully detailed claim including supporting particulars” within 42 days after
it became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance giving rise to a
claim.
If the claim event has a continuing impact, then the contractor is to submit a fully detailed claim
at monthly intervals, detailing the impact of the cumulative delay and/or amount claimed and
naming each claim an interim claim. Upon the conclusion of the delay event, the contractor shall
then submit a nal claim within 28 days after the end of the claim event.
The engineer in accordance with Sub-Clause 3.5 shall determine the claim, whereby the engineer
is to consult with the parties to see if the claim can be resolved, or if not the engineer is to make a
fair determination.
Nevertheless, the engineer shall respond to the contractor within 42 days after receiving a claim or
any further particulars supporting a clam, with approval, disapproval or with detailed
comments. The engineer may request further particulars from the contractor, but he shall give a
detailed response on the merit of such claim submitted within the time.
It should be noted that the submittal of the claim itself, is not stated to be time-barred, but if the
failure to provide a fully detailed claim has prevented the a proper investigation and potential
mitigation of the claim, then that delay can be factored into any determination, by the engineer, of
the contractor’s entitlement to time and/or money.
If the contractor is satis ed with the engineer’s determination, then the claim is settled. However,
should the contractor disagree with the determination made by the engineer then the claim is
escalated to the status of a dispute, however the contractor is bound by the engineer’s
determination until the claim (now a dispute) if nally resolved in accordance with Clause 20.
Employer’s claim in FIDIC 1999
The employer’s claim procedure under FIDIC 1999 is under Sub-Clause 2.5, which requires that the
employer or the engineer to give notice and particulars to the contractor “as soon as practicable”
after the employer became aware of a claim event, or circumstance, which leads to a claim.
The claim notice is to contain the particulars and cause of the claim and substantiation of the
amount claimed. However, the main difference to the contractor’s claim is that an employer’s
claim is not required to be submitted within a speci c time period from the claimed
event. Meaning that the employer is not time-barred from submitting its notice.
It should be noted that once an employer noti es it’s claim the same process is followed as for the
contractor’s claims as detailed above.
Claims Procedure in FIDIC 2017
There are a number of changes introduced to the claims procedure within FIDIC 2017 from FIDIC
1999, the main ones being:
The engineer takes a greater role throughout the claims process, particularly when it comes
to the engineer’s administration of claim notices;
Both the employer and contractors claims are addressed under the same clause and subject
to the same procedure; and
More rigorous xed time limits to submit claim notices and a fully detailed claim, which are:
28 days to submit a claims notice

84 days to submit a fully detailed claim
Please note that non-compliance (by either party) with the time limits for the notice or the fully
detailed claim may result in the invalidation of such documentation and potentially bar any
remedy for defaulting party to make a claim.
Sub-Clause 20.1 splits the categories of claims made by the employer and the contractor as follows:
20.1 (a) Additional payment from the contractor, a reduction in the contract price or an
extension of the defects noti cation period;
20.1 (b) Claims for an extension of time and/or additional payment against the employer; and
20.1 (c) Other relief not covered in the above categories.
There is a clear distinction between 20.1 (a) and (b) and 20.1 (c), in that the other claims (20.1 (c)),
although still determined by the engineer, do not need to follow the strict requirements of the
claims procedure, which shall be explained below.
In addition, the other claims do not commence from the event or circumstance, but from the
disagreement between the parties. The notice of such claims only require to be issued as soon as
practicable once the claiming party becomes aware of the disagreement, including details of the
disagreement. Notice is the only requirement for the engineer to issue its agreement or
determination under Sub-Clause 3.7.
The rst two categories of claims (Sub-Clause 20.1 (a) and (b)) must follow the claims procedure as
detailed under Sub-Clause 20.2.
The claiming party must give a notice to claim (Sub-Clause 20.2.1) as soon as practicable and no
later than 28 days after the party become aware, or should have become aware, of the event of
circumstance giving rise to a claim. Should a party fail to give a notice to claim within this time
period, then the claiming party shall not be entitled to claim against the other party, resulting in
the claiming party being time barred.
If the engineer considers that the claiming party has failed to provide a notice within the 28-day
period, the engineer is required to (Sub-Clause 20.2.2) give notice within 14 days from the date of
receiving the notice to claim, notifying that the claiming party is out of time.
Should the engineer not provide such a notice within the 14 days, the notice of claim submitted by
the claimant shall be deemed valid. The other party can still object to the validity, by giving notice
to the engineer and providing details of such objection. The engineer shall then consider this
objection when making the engineer’s determination.
Importantly, if the engineer issues its notice deeming the notice of claim to be invalid, then the
claiming party may include in its fully detailed claim, details of its disagreements or justi cation of
the late submission.
Even if the 14-day notice has been issued, the claiming party is required to submit a fully detailed
claim within 84 days and the engineer shall nevertheless agree and determine the substance of
the claim pursuant to Sub-Clause 3.7 and include a determination on the validity of the notice.
Should the claiming party fail to submit its claims within the 84-day time limit, its notice of claim
shall be deemed to have lapsed and the notice shall be treated as invalid. The engineer is required
pursuant to Sub-Clause 20.2.4, give notice to the claiming party that the claim is no longer
valid. This notice must be given within 14 days after the time limit submission of the detailed
claim has expired.
If the engineer issues this further notice, then it is open to the claiming party to provide such
disagreement or justi cation of the late submission, which shall be included in the claiming
party’s fully detailed claim.
If the engineer does not give a notice within the 14-day period, this notice of claim shall be
deemed a valid notice. If the other party disputes the validity of the further notice, it shall notify
the engineer of such disagreement. The same process applies above that the engineer must
include in its ndings on such disagreement. What this means is that the notice of disagreement
must be provided prior to the engineers determination for it to be included within the engineers
determination, even though there is no time limit stipulated for its submission.
Where the engineer has issued a notice to the claiming party saying that the time has lapsed and
the claim is no longer valid, the claiming party will be required to include details of its
disagreement with the engineer’s notice for the late submission of its fully detailed claim.
When the engineer has given a notice under Sub-Clause 20.2.2 (failure to give notice within the
time period) or Sub-Clause 20.2.4 (failure to provide a fully detailed claim), the engineer is required
to determine the submitted claim in accordance with the procedure set to under Sub-Clause
3.7. Whereby, the engineer must consider the claiming party’s disagreement within the
determination.
Sub-Clause 20.2.5 requires the engineer to agree or determine the claim in accordance with the
procedure set out under Sub-Clause 3.7, once the engineer receives the fully detailed claim.
If the claim is an interim claim, the engineer must issue a reply detailing the contractual or other
legal basis of the rst interim fully detailed claim within the time limit detailed under Sub-Clause
3.7.3. The claiming party shall continue to submit further interim detailed claims on a monthly
basis and shall submit a nal fully detailed claim within 28 days after the end of the delay effects
giving rise to the claim.
Sub-Clause 3.7.5 provides that if either party is dissatis ed with the engineer’s determination, such
party may, within 28 days after receiving the engineer’s determination, give a notice of
dissatisfaction (the notice must contain the reason for dissatisfaction).
After a notice of dissatisfaction is provided, either party may then proceed to obtain a decision of
the dispute from the dispute avoidance or adjudication board, but must comply with the
engineer’s determination in the interim, until it is replaced by a nal determination obtained
under the dispute procedure pursuant to Clause 21.
If no notice is given, then the engineer’s determination becomes nal and binding.
Disclaimer
The content of this webpage is for information only and is not intended to be construed as legal
advice and should not be treated as a substitute for speci c advice. Contract Bites accepts no
responsibility for the content of any third party website to which this site and/or webpage
refers. Please see my terms and conditions page for a full disclaimer.
← Previous Post Next Post →
Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required elds are marked *
Type here..
Name*
E-mail*
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Post Comment »
Subscribe
Name*
Email*
Subscribe
Search … 
Sea
Recent Posts
What does it mean when someone says that ‘time is at large’ on a construction project?
The difference between a variation and a claim
What are the differences between FIDIC 1999 and 2017 claims resolution procedures?
Can the contractor recover the cost of preparing a claim?
How does Corona virus affect construction contracts?
Categories
Claims
Construction Programme
Contract General Principles
COVID-19
Delay Analysis
FIDIC
Force Majeure
Archives
Select Month
Copyright © 2021 Contract Bites

What Are The Differences Between FIDIC 1999 and 2017 Claims Resolution Procedures - Contract Bites

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Are The Differences Between FIDIC 1999 and 2017 Claims Resolution Procedures - Contract Bites

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/13/2021 What are the differences between FIDIC 1999 and 2017 claims resolution procedures?

What are the di erences between FIDIC

Some examples of contractors claim clauses:

Delayed Drawings or Instructions (Sub-Clause 1.9);

Some examples of employer’s claim clauses:

Rejection and retesting of Works (Sub-Clause 7.5);

Contractor’s claim in FIDIC 1999

Employer’s claim in FIDIC 1999

Claims Procedure in FIDIC 2017

28 days to submit a claims notice

← Previous Post Next Post →

The difference between a variation and a claim

Can the contractor recover the cost of preparing a claim?

How does Corona virus affect construction contracts?

Contract General Principles

Copyright © 2021 Contract Bites

You might also like