Errors in Employer’s Requirements (Sub-Clause 1.9) and General Design Obligations (Sub-Clause 5.1)Projects using the FIDIC Yellow Book in Ireland are commonly amended so that Sub-Clause 1.9 is deleted and the final two paragraphs in Sub-Clause 5.1 are deleted or amended. This is so that the Contractor has the full design obligation under the contract. The intention is to remove design responsibility from the Employer in respect of documents provided by the Employer which form part of the Employer’s Requirements. While a Contractor may argue that this is closer to a Silver Book position, it is a standard amendment in Ireland to design and build contracts using the Yellow Book. The practical way to deal with this is to allow the Contractor sufficient time at tender stage so that they can adequately review the Employer’s Requirements and carry out any other assessments they consider necessary. By dealing with this issue at the outset, they can avoid a debate later on during contract negotiations as to whether the Employer retains any residual design responsibility in respect of any specifications or outline designs it has provided. Generally a funder will want all design responsibility to rest with the Contractor, therefore an Employer should set out this position in the draft contract included with the tender documents and ensure that the Yellow Book is amended accordingly.
Setting Out (Sub-Clause 4.7)Another common amendment in Yellow Book Contracts is that Sub-Clause 4.7 (Setting Out) is amended so that a Contractor cannot claim time or money in respect of errors in the positioning or setting out of the works, which is in effect the Silver Book position. Whether this amendment is appropriate in a particular case, will depend on what works are being carried out. If the works are to be set out in accordance with existing planning permission provided by the Employer to the Contractor, or in accordance with fixed points as determined by another contractor already working on the site, then the Contractor could reasonably argue that they should be able to claim time and/or cost due to any such errors in the setting out. By way of example, a turbine supplier for windfarm may be required to locate each turbine in accordance with the planning permission and foundation works. In this instance, if a turbine was in the wrong location due to an error in the planning permission, or an error by the foundation contractor, then the turbine supplier would expect to be able to claim time and/or cost.
Site Data (Sub-Clause 4.10) & Unforeseeable Physical Conditions (Sub-Clause 4.12)Responsibility for the site is an important issue for both Employers and Contractors. The FIDIC Yellow Book is commonly amended so that a Contractor cannot claim time or money due to the condition of the site and so that they accept the risks in respect of the site including its subsurface, hydrological and climatic conditions. While an Employer will provide site surveys, reports or documents it has obtained, it may not wish to give a confirmation as to their completeness in the event that further issues arise in the course of the project. A Contractor should be made aware of this at the beginning of the tender process. However in a situation where an Employer is familiar with the site, and is comfortable that there is not a material site risk, the Employer may be willing to accept a less onerous risk transfer to the Contractor under Sub-Clause 4.10 (Site Data) or under Sub-Clause 4.12 (Unforeseeable Physical Conditions) if it results in a more competitive price from the Contractor. When the funder due diligence is starting, an Employer should clearly communicate the position to the funder’s technical adviser and outline where they may be willing to retain any site risks, prior to the contract being reviewed by the funder’s legal advisers. This should help to avoid a disconnect between what the funder’s technical adviser may consider acceptable and any contractual amendments the funder’s legal adviser will inevitably seek to ensure the lowest risk positon for the funder.
Programming (Sub-Clause 8.3)While amendments to Sub-Clause 8.3, which deals with the programme, usually do not involve lengthy negotiations, the implications of including the programme as a contract document needs to be considered by both an Employer and a Contractor. There are benefits and risks associated with doing so, though it is standard practice in a project finance involving multiple contractors that the programme will be a contract document. Particular care should be taken when any contract is entered into prior to the funder due diligence process starting. If the programme is included as a contract document and the project is subsequently delayed due to a longer than anticipated due diligence process, or for any other reason, then the Employer may be in breach of its obligations to the Contractor to give it access to the site by an agreed date, and the Employer may be subject to claims by the Contractor for compensation for any resulting prolongation costs. This could become particularly complicated in a multi-party project involving numerous contractors. If the programme is to be included as a contract document, then it is preferable that all project contracts are entered into at the same time, preferably immediately prior to financial close. Courts in England have also held that where there are clear dates in a contact for the completion of specific works or milestones, then additional interim progress obligations will not be implied into a contract where the Contractor must carry out the works regularly and diligently. An Irish court may consider following this approach, and decisions of the English courts are of persuasive authority in Ireland. As such where the programme is a contract document, the contract should also state that the Contractor will exercise “diligence” in carrying out the works. Sub-Clause 8.1 of the Yellow Book provides that a contractor must proceed with “..due expedition and without delay” and it is important that wording to this effect is retained. In multi-party projects, Sub-Clause 4.6 (Co-Operation) of the Yellow Book is also commonly amended and expanded upon to provide that a Contractor will co-operate with and co-ordinate their design and construction work with other contractors, and the Engineer. An obligation is often included for that the Contractor to interface and integrate with the works of other contractors to ensure timely, efficient and cost-effective completion of the various elements of its own work and that of other contractors. This again ties in with the “diligence” requirement whereby meeting the milestones set out in the programme is not the only progress requirement for a Contractor, as they will need to carry out and co-ordinate their work with the other contractors on site so that each contractor can comply with the programme.
CommentWhile there are certain risk allocations that an Employer and Contractor should accept as standard in Ireland so that financing can be obtained, in each particular case it also needs to be considered which risks can legitimately be shared (or retained by an Employer) where this will have a positive effect on pricing of a contract or speed of the negotiation process. Early acknowledgement and consideration of these risks, and the incorporation of them into a bankable draft contract, will benefit the Employer and Contractor as it will clarify their obligations at the outset and avoid misunderstandings later on. Following this, clear communication by an Employer or their Engineer with a funder’s technical adviser and legal team can help ensure that a joined up and common sense approach is taken to contract negotiation, and the funder due diligence process, to ensure the project is delivered on time and on budget.
Author: David GunnRemember that this article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should always be taken in given situations. For further information on any of the items discussed, please contact a member of the Commercial team at McDowell Purcell. References:  Leander Construction Ltd v Mulalley and Company Ltd  EWHC 3449 (TCC) (England, High Court, 21 December 2011) and Greater London Council v The Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd and Another (1986) 34 BLR 50
Sign up to our email digest
Click to subscribe or manage your email preferences.