Guild of Project Controls: Compendium | Roles | Assessment | Certifications | Membership

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

FIDIC Clause

8 replies [Last post]
Fri, 2008-05-23 04:19
Jineesh Dath
User offline. Last seen 9 years 18 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Groups: None
Whats the difference between Clause 14 and Clause 8.3?
Top

Replies

Wed, 2008-05-28 14:57
#1
Rolando Caminero
User offline. Last seen 15 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 9
Groups: None
A well prepared plan defines the obligations not only by the Contractor but as well as those of others involved, Client, Material/Equipment Contractors, A/E Design group,including constraints due to site related reasons,
It transmit the mindset of the builder in diagram/chart form, who also needs contribution from other parties.
It must be flexible and rigid in a way,
Flexible to cope with actual conditions,
Rigid so as not to mislead other parties commitment,
If a planning programme is not a part of contract document?
why prepare one when there is no need to follow it?
go to a construction site and see if it is logical to work without a programme,

Top
Wed, 2008-05-28 04:31
#2
Stuart Ness
User offline. Last seen 12 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 352
Groups: None

Not entirely sure why one needs to compare Clause 14 (1992) with Clause 8.3 (1999), other than to demonstrate that the former version made little reference to a project management facility that now lies at the heart of modern construction projects. No one in their right mind would consider not using some form of programme for any construction project, even a house extension!

Certainly the failure to emphasise the importance of a programme was a serious omission from the 1992 version, and this has been addressed - at least in part - by its subsequent inclusion.

As we know, the programme is there to make everyone’s life easier in managing complex (or even straightforward) projects. I am unconvinced, however, that formalising planning procedures into the Contract document is advantageous, since these need to be flexible to suit changing circumstances, and I do not think a ’one size fits all’ phylosophy is wise in this case.
Top
Wed, 2008-05-28 04:02
#3
Sunil Kumar
User offline. Last seen 8 years 2 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 84
Groups: None
The best way to overcome is to amend your contract and ensure you have your planning procedures part of the contract.
Top
Wed, 2008-05-28 02:41
#4
Jineesh Dath
User offline. Last seen 9 years 18 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Groups: None
Thank you every body for your replies. .
Esp Stuart Ness and im sure he knows why ..

Regards
Jineesh
Top
Wed, 2008-05-28 01:05
#5
A D
User offline. Last seen 3 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2007
Posts: 1027
Groups: Accreditation Editors
Absolutely true, but theres small difference in both forms:

CLAUSE 8.3 (1999)

The full role of the programme in the FIDIC form is not clear. One role of the programme in the FIDIC conditions is to allow the progress of the Works to be monitored. Although not expressly stated, it is suggested that in order to fulfill the functions required to monitor progress and predict future delays under the Red and Yellow Forms, the minimum requirement is a Prediction Programme in the form of a Linked Bar Chart. It is suggested that the Silver Form only requires a Bar Chart type of programme.

The programme is not used as a Compensation Programme, although it will be evidence of actual progress and of the reasonable time for issue of information. It is suggested that it would not be a "fair determination" to ignore the results of an analysis of extension of time based upon or using the Clause 8.3 programme. The programme defines, if not creates, time obligations, although not a contract document.

It is suggested that Employers should consider specifying a Network Analysis Programme and the form required as well as the software to be adopted, since this will allow easier reporting and monitoring of progress as well as analysis of compensation, particularly as each programme is required to be resourced.

CLAUSE 14 (1992 edition)

This version does not give the programme a significant place in the administration and management of the contract. The Contractor’s report on his method of working is distinct from the submission of a programme and there appears to be no requirement to link the two. The Contractor’s obligation to progress the Works is not directly related to the programme. The determination of any extension of time is based on actual delay and not analysis of the programme.

It is suggested that in order to fulfill the functions required under the ICE 7th Edition (1992) a Progress Programme in the form of a Bar Chart is all that is required.
Top
Wed, 2008-05-28 00:01
#6
Sunil Kumar
User offline. Last seen 8 years 2 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 84
Groups: None
CLAUSE 14 REFERS TO FIDIC 1992 AND CLASUE 8.3 IS FROM FIDIC 1999
Top
Mon, 2008-05-26 11:46
#7
Stuart Ness
User offline. Last seen 12 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 352
Groups: None
OK - so some fell on stony ground!! ;-)

As you are aware, (Sub)Clause 8.3 of FIDIC (Red, Yellow and Silver Books) refers to the obligation for the Contractor to submit a Programme and also to the nature and extent of said Programme.

Clause 14 of Do. do. refers to Contract Price and Payment.

Where is the inconsistency between these two references??
Top
Sun, 2008-05-25 16:10
#8
Stuart Ness
User offline. Last seen 12 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 352
Groups: None


5.70
Top