This is my second article regarding the role of VT Project Manager (referred to as Engineer in this article) in FIDIC contracts which I’ve talked about in depth to cover the whole issue.
Can the Engineer in FIDIC contracts have any legal role? And what is the legal ruling on that? And what are its implications?
Before answering these questions it seems to me the first question came to anyone involved in this field, what is the role of the engineer in the event of a dispute in FIDIC contracts?
In the world of construction and infrastructure development, disputes are an inevitable part of the process.
When parties enter into contracts, such as those governed by the FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers) standard forms, they do so with the expectation that they will work together to achieve a common goal.
However, disagreements can arise due to various reasons, such as differing interpretations of contract terms, unexpected site conditions, or delays in payment and project completion.
In the event of a dispute in a FIDIC contract, the role of the engineer is crucial in facilitating resolution and ensuring that the project progresses smoothly.
The engineer, who is typically appointed by the employer to oversee the construction works, plays a dual role as both a technical advisor and a neutral party in disputes.
Their responsibilities include certifying payments, assessing claims, and providing recommendations for resolving disputes fairly and impartially.
One of the key roles of the engineer in a dispute is to act as a mediator between the parties involved.
The engineer is expected to listen to both sides of the argument, gather relevant information, and provide an objective assessment of the situation.
By remaining neutral and impartial, the engineer can help the parties reach a mutually acceptable solution that is in line with the terms of the contract.
Another important role of the engineer in a dispute is to interpret and apply the contract provisions effectively.
FIDIC contracts are complex legal documents that outline the rights and obligations of each party, as well as the procedures for resolving disputes.
The engineer must have a thorough understanding of the contract terms and be able to apply them correctly to the specific circumstances of the dispute.
This requires a high level of technical expertise, as well as good communication and negotiation skills.
In some cases, the engineer may be required to issue a formal determination or decision on a dispute.
This could involve assessing the merits of each party’s claim, conducting site inspections, and reviewing relevant documentation.
The engineer’s decision is usually binding on the parties unless it is challenged through arbitration or litigation.
Therefore, the engineer needs to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation before making a decision, to ensure that it is fair and reasonable.
In addition to mediating disputes and interpreting contract terms, the engineer also has a role in preventing disputes from arising in the first place.
By maintaining open communication with the parties, monitoring the progress of the works, and addressing issues promptly, the engineer can help to identify potential problems early on and take proactive measures to resolve them.
This proactive approach can help to minimize the likelihood of disputes and keep the project on track.
Overall, the role of the engineer in the event of a dispute in FIDIC contracts is multifaceted and challenging.
The engineer must balance technical expertise with diplomatic skills, remain impartial and fair in their decision-making, and work towards finding a resolution that is acceptable to all parties.
By fulfilling these responsibilities effectively, the engineer can help to ensure the successful completion of the project and maintain the integrity of the contract.
However, my opinion is that، this role constitutes an additional burden on the engineer’s role in implementing FIDIC contracts, which is to supervise and follow up on the implementation of the project without burdening the engineer with additional burdens that are not his responsibility.
Especially the legal burdens, which are represented in several different forms that go beyond the engineer’s basic competence, which is only supervision and implementation.
In the event of a dispute, all documents, contracts, documents, and witnesses related to the dispute must be referred to the competent legal authorities, whether through the competent legal advisor or approved legal consulting offices, to look into the dispute in depth and experience and find appropriate solutions to it.
In addition to the approved legal translation, whether of papers, documents, or witness statements and all evidence that supports the case and proofs that the engineer lacks in FIDIC contracts because they are not originally within his jurisdiction or obligation.
Accordingly, through what was previously explained, the engineer in FIDIC contracts can perform some legal roles in the event of a dispute between the parties to the contract in the project, but we see that these roles are not within the competence of the engineer in the project.
But rather they constitute an additional burden and obligation for him above his original burdens, in addition to his not entering into legal or legal courses.
Obtaining the necessary legal certificates and licenses for this may ultimately lead to major losses in the project due to the engineer’s lack of competence in such legal affairs that require specific people to carry them out and bring the dispute to the best possible and fair solutions between the two parties to the dispute in the contract.
By not referring all papers and documents related to the dispute to the competent court to take the necessary legal measures to resolve the dispute between the disputing parties to the contract.
