دانلود کتاب راهنمای FIDIC شرایط قرارداد برای ساخت و ساز

The Conditions of Contract prepared by FIDIC are well established as the standard form of choice for use in the international construction industry. Traditionally, in the standard FIDIC forms, the Engineer was given an authoritative role, enabling him to make informed judgements concerning the conduct and execution of projects with a large measure of independence from the Employer. From time to time, FIDIC updated these forms culminating in the 4th Edition 1987 (last reprinted 1992). However, over the past 30–40 years, Employers became increasingly more involved in the day‐by‐day administration of projects, thereby restricting the powers of the Engineer to act independently of the parties. In the same period, there was a significant increase in the availability of international funding, particularly for infrastructure projects. As a consequence, more and more companies undertook construction projects outside their national borders. However, many contractors were not always familiar with operating requirements of an FIDIC‐based contract. Equally, Employers, well used to their national systems of contracting practices and law, faced with having to deal with contracts based on unfamiliar forms. A key feature of the dispute resolution procedure contained in the FIDIC 4th Edition 1987, Sub‐Clause 67.1 (Engineer’s Decision) was the power and authority of the Engineer to make independent judgements. As the independence of the Engineer diminished following the increasing direct involvement of the Employer, the value of Engineer’s decision was increasingly challenged by the contractors; as a result, more and more disputes were referred to arbitration. Few in the construction industry regard arbitration as a satisfactory means of resolving disputes. Arbitration is a lengthy and expensive process that may or may not lead to awards. With a more flexible, realistic approach, the disputes could be negotiated more quickly and at a lower cost. A contractor also suffers because he is unable to foresee the outcome of the arbitration, and his cash flow is uncertain and damaged as a consequence of lengthy arbitration. Regrettably, there are instances of Employers preferring to refer some disputes to arbitration to avoid having to make decisions that they are unwilling to make themselves because of political or economic reasons. Against this background, FIDIC undertook a major review of their standard forms.