FIDIC CCM - Certified Contract Manager

All main FIDIC contract editions contain provisions that allow the Employer or Engineer to propose or instruct the Contractor to employ certain subcontractors (e.g., nominated subcontractors). The Contractor retains the right to refuse such subcontractors only for reasonable cause, which must be communicated formally.

This mechanism protects the Employer’s interests in subcontractor selection while safeguarding the Contractor’s right to reject subcontractors that may not be competent or suitable.

Therefore, the statement is true.

The Employer must provide detailed notice to the Contractor regarding intended changes material to financial arrangements, enabling transparency and allowing the Contractor to assess impacts and prepare claims or adjustments accordingly.

This obligation supports fair risk allocation and project control.

Under the FIDIC Red Book 2017, Clause 21 establishes a standing Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB) as a default requirement. This is a major evolution from the 1999 edition, where a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) could be ad hoc. Therefore, Option C is correct, as the General Conditions clearly provide for a standing DAAB appointed at the outset of the Contract.

Option D is also correct. The appointment procedure for DAAB members requires mutual agreement between the Parties. Even if one Party nominates a member, that nomination must be accepted by the other Party to ensure neutrality, independence, and confidence in the dispute resolution process.

Option A is incorrect because amicable settlement (Clause 21.5) is required after a DAAB decision and before arbitration, not before referring a matter to the DAAB.

Option B is incorrect because DAAB decisions are binding immediately (whether or not final), unless and until revised by arbitration. They are not dependent on prior confirmation by arbitration to be binding.

Option E is incorrect because failure to give a Notice of Dissatisfaction (NoD) relates to a DAAB decision becoming final and binding—not an Engineer’s determination. The statement incorrectly mixes procedural steps.

These provisions reflect FIDIC’s structured multi-tier dispute resolution system, promoting early resolution through DAAB before escalation to arbitration.

Under FIDIC 2017 editions, the Performance Security protects the Employer against failure by the Contractor to fulfill contractual obligations. The Employer may claim under the Performance Security in the following cases:

Option A: Failure to renew the Tender Security as required during the tendering or contract formation phase can allow Employer to make a claim, since the security guarantees the Contractor’s commitments at this stage.

Option E: Failure to extend the validity of the Performance Security when requested or required breaches contractual obligations and enables the Employer to claim under the security.

Option B is incorrect because abandonment without termination notice does not immediately entitle the Employer to claim under Performance Security; formal termination is usually required first.

Option C is incorrect because submitting a claim under Sub-Clause 20.2 (Employer’s claims) does not directly correlate with claiming under Performance Security.

Option D is irrelevant; instructions to replace works do not relate to Performance Security claims.

Under FIDIC 2017, Employer’s Claims are governed by Clause 20.2 [Claims For Payment and/or EOT]. The first procedural step is the submission of a Notice of Claim.

Option A is correct because the Employer must notify the Engineer of the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim. This notice must clearly describe the basis of the claim, including the relevant facts (e.g., delay, cost, or Defects Notification Period extension).

Option B is also correct. FIDIC 2017 introduces a strict 28-day time bar for both Parties. The claiming Party (including the Employer) must give notice “as soon as practicable” and no later than 28 days after becoming aware (or when it should have become aware) of the event. Failure to comply may result in loss of entitlement.

Option C is incorrect because it is irrelevant and misrepresents the structured claims procedure under Clause 20.

Option D is incorrect for the first step. While later submissions (fully detailed claim under Sub-Clause 20.2.4) require detailed particulars including contractual basis, the initial notice does not require full legal substantiation—only identification of the event/circumstance.

This structured two-step process (Notice → Fully Detailed Claim) is central to FIDIC 2017’s claims management system, ensuring early warning and proper administration of claims.

Options A and B are correct: Both the Red and Yellow Books require the Engineer to certify payments before the Employer pays the Contractor.

Option C (Silver Book) typically places the risk on the Contractor and often provides for payment without Engineer certification, reflecting the turnkey nature of the contract.

Option D is not a new procedure introduced in the 2017 FIDIC editions.

The 2017 editions focus on dispute avoidance (A), quality management systems (B), and fair risk allocation (C), but do not explicitly require a Compliance Verification System as described.

Under FIDIC Red Book 1999, Sub-Clause 13.8 [Adjustments for Changes in Cost] governs price adjustment based on cost indices. A key provision addresses the situation where the Contractor fails to complete the Works within the Time for Completion.

In such a case, the contract protects the Employer from adverse cost escalation due to Contractor delay. The adjustment of prices is calculated using whichever index is more favourable to the Employer between:

the index applicable at the time of execution (current index), or

the index applicable 49 days before the expiry of the Time for Completion.

This mechanism ensures that the Contractor does not benefit from price increases occurring after the contractual completion date if the delay is attributable to the Contractor. It reflects a fundamental FIDIC principle: the Contractor bears the financial consequences of delay for which it is responsible.

Option A is incomplete because it ignores comparison with current indices.

Option B is incorrect because it does not account for Employer protection.

Option D is incorrect because the rule is predefined in the Contract, not subject to agreement.

Thus, Option C correctly reflects FIDIC’s balanced risk allocation regarding cost escalation after delay.

Option D is correct because contract drafting should strategically allocate risks between parties based on who can best manage them and the Employer’s budget for risk and reward. Understanding risk appetite is key to tailoring FIDIC contracts appropriately.

Option A is exaggerated; while amendments can introduce issues, careful drafting can preserve benefits of standardization.

Option B is partly true but mixing arrangements is complex and not always straightforward.

Option C is incorrect; the Employer usually chooses the contract form.

Option A is NOT a Variation because it originates from a Value Engineering proposal by the Contractor, not from Employer or Engineer instruction or request.

Options B, C, and D are all variations initiated by the Employer or Engineer.