Views in the last 30 days: 42
Estimated read time: 16 minute(s)
🔄 1999 vs 2017: How Engineer’s Instruction Clauses Have Evolved
Compare the key features of FIDIC’s Engineer’s Instructions between the 1999 and 2017 editions. Swipe/scroll on mobile.
Topic | 1999 Clause | 2017 Clause | Key Relocation / Restructuring |
---|---|---|---|
📝Engineer’s right to instruct | 3.3 Instructions of the Engineer | 3.5 Engineer’s Instructions | The heading is unchanged, but the 2017 text is shorter because many procedural safeguards were moved to 3.7 (Agreement or Determination). |
🤔Contractor’s right to query / object | 3.3 (b)–(d) | 3.5 + 3.7.1 (consultation) | In 1999 the objection window (28 days) sat inside 3.3; 2017 pushes objections into the multi-step consultation flow of 3.7. |
⏳Automatic deeming of approval / rejection | Implicit (silence deemed approval after 14 days for programmes, drawings, etc.; not for instructions) | 3.7.3 Time limits introduces a 42-day deeming period for any matter to be agreed/determined, including disputed instructions. | New for 2017: Unified time limit covers instructions and all matters for determination. |
⛔Suspension of work if instruction is unlawful | 1999 sent contractor to 13.1 (Variations) or 8.1 (Commencement) | Now expressly cross-refers to Sub-Clause 1.13 Compliance with Laws and the new Exceptional Events regime (cl. 18) | Cross-references now make legal compliance and force majeure handling explicit. |
Want to dive deeper? Explore the evolution of FIDIC contract administration with these guides:
⚖️ How Key On-Site Issues Are Treated: FIDIC 1999 vs 2017
See how common site issues are handled differently (and more rigorously) in the 2017 edition. Swipe/scroll on mobile!
Issue on Site | Under 1999 | Under 2017 | Net Effect |
---|---|---|---|
📃Form of instruction | Could be oral, but must be confirmed in writing “as soon as practicable.” | Must be in writing (digital counts) before it is effective. The oral-first route has been removed. | Reduces later disputes about “what was actually instructed.” |
🚦Engineer’s authority limits | Engineer barred from changing “Contract Price, Time, scope” unless it is a Variation; but this sat only in 3.3. | Same substantive bar, plus the Engineer must follow the consult-then-determine routine of 3.7 for any instruction that affects price/time. | Brings Variations, EOTs and cost claims into one harmonised process; strengthens due-process rights for both Parties. |
⏳Contractor’s objection window | 28 days to give notice that the instruction is outside the Contract or illegal; if no notice, Contractor must comply. | No fixed “objection” article; instead, Contractor raises a Notice of Claim (Sub-Clause 20.2.1) within 28 days, triggering the 42-day 3.7 timetable for Engineer’s decision. | Procedurally heavier, but merges “instruction disputes” with all other claim types, making timelines uniform. |
🔇Failure of Engineer to respond | Silence after Contractor’s notice meant dispute could go directly to DAB under cl. 20.4. | Silence now gives a deemed rejection after the 42-day limit (3.7.3), which the Contractor can attack with a Notice of Dissatisfaction and proceed to the DAAB under cl. 21.4. | Closes an old gap where no time-limit existed for Engineer’s reply. |
🛠️Instruction that is a Variation | Engineer issues it; Contractor follows Variation Procedure 13.3. | Engineer may either issue a Variation Instruction (13.3.1) or a Request for Proposal (13.3.2); price/time is then agreed or determined via 3.7. | Adds the RFP route, encouraging cost/time clarity before the Variation is executed. |
🌐 Why Did FIDIC Make These Changes? (The Big Picture)
-
🔎
Due-process & transparency:
The 2017 suite introduces a contract-wide “loop” (the 3.7 → 20 → 21 chain) so every contested act—payment, EOT, or instruction—follows a clear path: Notice → Engineer’s agreement/determination → DAAB → arbitration. -
🕊️
Proactive dispute avoidance:
If Parties can’t agree, the Engineer must now step in and issue a timely determination (3.7.2/3). No more letting issues fester. -
💻
Digital reality:
Requiring instructions to be written from the outset matches today’s site practice—think emails and CDE/BIM platforms. -
⚖️
Alignment with other 2017 forms:
Redrafting 3.3/3.5 for “Golden Principle #2” (clear allocation of risks & obligations) meant stripping duplicative text and centralizing shared procedures (3.7, 20, 21).
🌊 Cross-Referencing with Other Clauses: The “Ripple Effect” of Engineer’s Instructions
Let’s be honest—no FIDIC clause works in a vacuum. The Engineer’s Instructions are the epicenter of a web that reaches into variations, claims, safety, and even how disputes are settled. Let’s “connect the contractual dots” and see the bigger picture!
A. Who Can Instruct? (Delegation Clauses)
Why it matters:
The Contractor only takes instructions from the Engineer, their Representative, or someone properly delegated under these clauses—protecting the Contractor from “unofficial” instructions.
Example: If a site supervisor (not officially delegated) tries to order the Contractor to speed up, the Contractor can—and should—politely refuse and avoid liability.
B. Is it a Variation? (Variations Clauses)
2017: Clause 13.1 & 13.3.1 [Right to Vary & Variation by Instruction]
1999: Clause 13.1 & 13.3 [Right to Vary & Variation Procedure]
Why it matters:
Engineer’s instructions that change the scope are governed by these clauses—ensuring Contractors get paid for extra work and Employers control costs.
1999: Clause 13.1 & 13.3 [Right to Vary & Variation Procedure]
Example: Engineer instructs, “Install a higher-capacity generator.” Contractor must notify immediately—if it’s a Variation, the full evaluation and pricing procedure kicks in.
C. Notification & Claim Clauses
Why it matters:
Notification is everything! If the Contractor thinks an instruction is a Variation, unsafe, or unbuildable, they must notify fast or risk losing entitlement.
Practical: Many contractors have tripped up here—missing strict deadlines and losing the right to claim extra time or money.
D. Compliance with Laws & Safety
2017: Clause 1.13 [Compliance with Laws], Clause 4.8 [Health & Safety Obligations]
1999: Clause 1.13 [Compliance with Laws], Clause 4.8 [Safety Procedures]
Why it matters:
Instructions must be legal and safe. The Contractor must speak up if told to do otherwise—protecting everyone involved.
1999: Clause 1.13 [Compliance with Laws], Clause 4.8 [Safety Procedures]
Example: If instructed to build a wall that violates local codes, Contractor must notify. In 2017, if not fixed in 7 days, the instruction is revoked—no harm done.
E. Disputes & Determinations
2017: Clause 3.7 [Agreement/Determination], Clause 21 [Disputes & Arbitration]
1999: Clause 3.5 [Determinations], Clause 20 [Claims, Disputes & Arbitration]
Why it matters:
Disagreements over instructions? These clauses guide resolution—Engineer decides first, then it can escalate to DAAB or arbitration.
1999: Clause 3.5 [Determinations], Clause 20 [Claims, Disputes & Arbitration]
Fun Fact: This “layered” process avoids knee-jerk lawsuits and keeps projects moving while paperwork catches up.
F. Contractor’s Representative: Receiving Instructions
2017 & 1999: Clause 4.3 [Contractor’s Representative]
Why it matters:
Only the official Representative can receive instructions—reducing confusion and disputes.
🔗 Key Scenarios: What Clauses Matter Most?
A handy map for navigating which FIDIC clauses drive each common scenario—and what’s really at stake.
Key Scenario | Related Clauses (2017) | Related Clauses (1999) | What’s at Stake? |
---|---|---|---|
Is it a Variation? | 3.5, 13.1, 13.3.1 | 3.3, 13.1, 13.3 | Payment, time, risk |
Delegation of authority | 3.4, 4.3 | 3.2, 4.3 | Instruction validity |
Claims/notifications | 20.2 | 20.1 | Right to claim |
Safety/legal compliance | 1.13, 4.8, 3.5 | 1.13, 4.8, 3.3 | Liability, site safety |
Dispute resolution | 3.7, 21 | 3.5, 20 | Project momentum |
Who can instruct? | 3.5, 3.4, 4.3 | 3.3, 3.2, 4.3 | Chain of command |
🚦 Suggestions for Clarity & Improvement: Making Engineer’s Instructions Bulletproof
Why Improve? The power to issue instructions is at the heart of FIDIC contracts—but also where disputes most often start. Let’s make these instructions watertight and fair, in line with FIDIC’s Golden Principles.
⏰
1. “Immediately Notify”
Problem: “Immediately” is vague—does it mean the same day, within hours?
Improvement: Define a specific timeframe (e.g., “within 2 working days of receiving the instruction”).
📝
2. “Necessary Instructions”
Problem: What’s “necessary” is subjective—leads to conflict.
Improvement: Give clear examples, and tie “necessary” to Contract, Employer’s Requirements, or safety/quality.
E.g., instructions “necessary to comply with Employer’s Requirements or to maintain site safety.”
🚧
3. “Impractical, Unsafe, or Illegal”
Problem: Lacks concrete examples—“impractical” is open to argument.
Improvement: Add real-world illustrations—e.g., “would breach national codes, require unavailable tech, or violate safety laws.”
🔗
4. Chain of Command
Problem: Teams change, and it’s unclear who can instruct.
Improvement: Cross-reference delegation clauses and list authorized roles in Particular Conditions.
📅
5. Engineer’s Response Period
Problem: Default 7-day rule (FIDIC 2017) can be missed if not set in Particular Conditions.
Improvement: Reaffirm and tailor response periods—e.g., “within 5 days for safety issues” for urgency.
🔍 Practical Examples: Avoiding Pitfalls with Engineer’s Instructions
Example 1:
The Engineer instructs use of a new concrete additive, but it isn’t approved by local authorities. The Contractor should notify the Engineer in writing, within 2 working days, explaining that compliance would breach Clause 1.13 [Compliance with Laws].
Example 2:
The Engineer’s Representative requests extra work not listed in the Employer’s Requirements. The Contractor checks the delegation list in the Particular Conditions, finds no variation authority, and (correctly) requests written confirmation from the Engineer.
Related: Delegation Clauses
Example 3:
The Engineer instructs “work overtime every Saturday” to catch up on schedule. The Contractor’s manager, aware of labor law restrictions, notifies the Engineer that this would violate employment laws and provides evidence from the relevant legal code.
Related: Compliance with Laws
🏅 FIDIC Golden Principles (GP): How to Align Your Modifications
1
Duties, Rights, Obligations & Risk Allocation
Don’t shift all risk or power to one side. If you limit Engineer’s authority, specify who takes on that duty instead.
2
Particular Conditions Must Be Clear
Spell out deadlines, required formats (email, letter), and who receives notifications. Use simple, unambiguous language.
3
Engineer’s Independence
State that the Engineer must act fairly and impartially—not just as the Employer’s agent—when issuing instructions.
4
Takeover by a Replacement Party
Avoid bespoke terms only one person understands—define roles (not just names) so anyone can step in if needed.
5
International Operability
Reference international standards, and define “laws” as those of the project country for global clarity.
📜 Model Clause Wording: Engineer’s Instructions (Best Practice)
Why use this? This refined wording is aligned with FIDIC’s Golden Principles and all the lessons from recent disputes. It clarifies timelines, authority, and what to do if instructions are challenged.
Modified Sub-Clause 3.5 Engineer’s Instructions
The Engineer may issue to the Contractor instructions that are necessary for the execution of the Works, including those required for compliance with the Contract, the Employer’s Requirements, site safety, or quality standards.
The Contractor shall comply with all such instructions, provided they are issued in writing by the Engineer, Engineer’s Representative, or any delegated assistant as listed in Appendix X [Delegation of Authority].
If the Contractor believes an instruction:
• constitutes a Variation,
• is impractical (e.g., requires unavailable technology, unachievable within contract timeframes, or demands resources not reasonably obtainable),
• is unsafe (e.g., would breach safety standards or endanger personnel),
• or is illegal (e.g., would violate national/local laws or regulations),
the Contractor shall notify the Engineer in writing within 2 working days of receipt, setting out the detailed reasons.
If the Engineer does not respond by confirming, varying, or revoking the instruction within 7 days of receiving the Contractor’s notice, the instruction shall be deemed revoked.
No instruction shall be considered valid unless issued in accordance with this Sub-Clause.
Any oral instruction shall be confirmed in writing within 1 working day.
All notices and communications shall be delivered to the addresses specified in the Contract Data, using the agreed method(s) set out therein.
Tips for Use:
– Add an Appendix for Delegation listing exactly who may instruct.
– Define “working days” and “written notice” in your Contract Data.
– Tailor the response period for your project’s needs (e.g., 5 days for safety).
– Ensure all parties know these rules—include in kickoff training!
– Add an Appendix for Delegation listing exactly who may instruct.
– Define “working days” and “written notice” in your Contract Data.
– Tailor the response period for your project’s needs (e.g., 5 days for safety).
– Ensure all parties know these rules—include in kickoff training!
✅ Quick-Fire Checklist: Engineer’s Instructions
(FIDIC Yellow Book 1999 — Clause 3.3 📘 & 2017 — Clause 3.5 📒 plus linked procedures)
Stage | Key Checkpoint | 🔗 1999 Ref | 🔗 2017 Ref | ✅ |
---|---|---|---|---|
Before issuing | Does the Engineer have authority to instruct on this matter (price/time/scope not exceeded without Variation route)? | 3.3(a) | 3.5 (chapeau) | |
Before issuing | Has the Engineer consulted the Parties where the instruction may alter Contract Price or Time? | implicit → 13.3 | 3.7.1 | |
Before issuing | Is the instruction lawful and compliant with applicable laws & permits? | 1.13, 3.3(d) | 1.13, 3.5(1) | |
Issuing the instruction | Is the instruction in writing (email/CDE/BIM counts) and clearly labelled “Instruction”? | Oral then written allowed | Written only (3.5(2)) | |
Issuing the instruction | Does it describe what, where, when and any quality/spec details unambiguously? | 1.5, 3.3 | 1.5, 3.5 | |
Issuing the instruction | If it is (or might be) a Variation, has the Engineer chosen either: 🔸 Variation Instruction or 🔸 RFP? | 13.1–13.3 | 13.3.1 / 13.3.2 | |
After issuing | Has the Engineer recorded the instruction in the Site log / CDE within 2 days (good practice, not GC)? | Best practice | Best practice | |
After issuing | Has the Contractor acknowledged receipt (time-stamp in CDE or written reply)? | 1.3, 4.2 | 1.3, 4.2 | |
Contractor response window | If the Contractor believes the instruction is outside Contract or illegal, has a Notice of Claim / objection been given within 28 days? | 3.3(b)–(d) | 20.2.1 | |
Contractor response window | If a claim was raised, did the Engineer agree/determine within 42 days (or earlier agreed period)? | DAB route only | 3.7.2 & 3.7.3 | |
Record-keeping & follow-up | Has the instruction been costed / programmed and tied back to an EOT or Variation proposal? | 13.3, 20.1 | 13.3 + 20.2.4 | |
Record-keeping & follow-up | Are all related documents (drawings, specs, emails) filed for potential DAAB / arbitration evidence? | 1.3, 3.4 | 1.3, 3.6 | |
Dispute escalation | If disagreement persists, has a Notice of Dissatisfaction been filed within 28 days of DAAB decision / deemed decision? | 20.4 | 21.4 |
✉️ FIDIC Engineer–Contractor Letter Templates (Yellow Book 1999 & 2017)
1. Engineer’s Written Instruction (Best Practice 2017 & 1999)
Reference: Clause 3.3 / Clause 3.5
[Engineer’s Letterhead] Date: [DD MMM YYYY] Your Ref: [Instruction No.] Our Ref: [Project/Contract No.] To: The Contractor Attention: [Contractor’s Project Manager] Subject: Engineer’s Instruction – [Brief Description] (FIDIC Yellow Book Clause 3.3 / 3.5) Dear Sirs, Pursuant to Clause 3.3 (1999) / Clause 3.5 (2017) of the Contract, the Engineer hereby instructs you to: 1. What: [Describe works, change, testing, etc.] 2. Where: [Chainage / Grid / Drawing ref.] 3. When: [Start date] – [Completion date or duration] 4. Quality/Spec: [Standard, section, drawing revision] 5. Reason (informative): [Safety / coordination / Variation / urgent remedial] Please acknowledge receipt within 2 working days and proceed without delay. If you consider this Instruction to be a Variation or to affect the Contract Price or Time for Completion, submit your proposal or Notice of Claim in accordance with Clause 13.3 / 20.2.1. Yours faithfully, ________________________ [Name] The Engineer
2. Contractor’s Acknowledgement & Intention to Comply
Reference: Clause 3.3 / Clause 3.5
[Contractor’s Letterhead] Date: [DD MMM YYYY] Ref: [Instruction No.] / [Our Letter No.] To: The Engineer Subject: Acknowledgement of Instruction – [Instruction No.] (Clause 3.3 / 3.5) Dear [Engineer’s Name], We acknowledge receipt of your Instruction dated [date] concerning [brief description]. We have commenced the instructed activities and will execute them in accordance with the Contract. Should we determine that the Instruction constitutes a Variation and/or gives rise to additional cost or time, we will submit the required particulars under Clause 13.3 and (where applicable) a Notice of Claim under Sub-Clause 20.2.1 within the prescribed 28 days. Yours sincerely, ________________________ [Name] Project Manager – Contractor
3. Contractor’s Notice of Objection / Notice of Claim
Reference: Clause 3.3(b)–(d) / 20.2.1
[Contractor’s Letterhead] Date: [DD MMM YYYY] Ref: [Notice No.] To: The Engineer Cc: The Employer Subject: Notice of [Objection / Claim] – Instruction [Instruction No.] (Clause 3.3(b)–(d) 1999 / 20.2.1 2017) Dear [Engineer’s Name], We refer to your Instruction dated [date]. Grounds for Objection / Claim • The works ordered are not within the Contract scope as defined in Clause [insert]. • Compliance would [contravene local law / pose a safety risk / exceed our design responsibility]. • The Instruction will impact our cost and/or programme by [brief impact]. Accordingly, and in accordance with: * 1999: Clause 3.3(b)–(d) – we hereby object and request withdrawal or variation of the Instruction; or * 2017: Sub-Clause 20.2.1 – this letter constitutes a Notice of Claim within the required 28 days. Next Steps Requested 1. Please confirm whether you will revise or withdraw the Instruction. 2. Failing agreement within 42 days (Sub-Clause 3.7.3), kindly issue your determination. We reserve our rights under the Contract. Yours faithfully, ________________________ [Name] Project Manager – Contractor
4. Engineer’s Request for Proposal (RFP) – Variation Route (2017 only)
Reference: Sub-Clause 13.3.2 & 3.5
[Engineer’s Letterhead] Date: [DD MMM YYYY] Ref: [RFP No.] To: The Contractor Subject: Request for Proposal – Potential Variation (Sub-Clause 13.3.2 & 3.5) Dear Sirs, The Employer is considering a Variation involving [describe change]. Please submit, within 14 days of this Request, your priced proposal including: 1. Breakdown of quantities, unit rates and substantiation of any new rates; 2. Impact on the Time for Completion; 3. Effect on working methods, temporary works, and health & safety plans. No work under this potential Variation is to commence until an Instruction under Sub-Clause 13.3.1 is issued. Yours faithfully, ________________________ [Name] The Engineer
5. Contractor’s Notice of Dissatisfaction (NoD)
Reference: Clause 20.4 (1999) / 21.4 (2017)
[Contractor’s Letterhead] Date: [DD MMM YYYY] Ref: [NoD No.] To: The Employer Cc: The Engineer, Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board Subject: Notice of Dissatisfaction – Engineer’s Determination / Deemed Rejection (Clause 20.4 1999 / 21.4 2017) Dear Sirs, We refer to: • The Engineer’s determination dated [date] concerning Instruction [Instruction No.]; or • The absence of a determination within the 42-day period ending on [date]. Pursuant to Clause 20.4 (1999) / Clause 21.4 (2017), we hereby give Notice of Dissatisfaction. We request that the dispute be referred to the [DAB / DAAB] in accordance with the Contract. Yours faithfully, ________________________ [Name] Authorised Signatory – Contractor
🗺️ Flowchart: Engineer’s Instruction Process
-
Engineer identifies a need to issue an instruction (for execution or defect remedy).
Start: Need for Instruction Identified -
Instruction is formulated and sent in writing to the Contractor.
Engineer Issues Written Instruction -
Does this instruction change the contract scope?If Yes:Apply Clause 13 (Variations and Adjustments) to manage the change.If No:Contractor complies with the instruction as issued.
Decision: Is Instruction a Variation? -
If it’s a Variation, manage the process: adjust contract terms, scope, and price.
Manage Variation Process (If Applicable) -
Contractor executes the instructed work or remedies defects as instructed.
Work Execution or Defect Remediation -
Any Variation is formally incorporated into the project.
Variation Implemented in Project (If Applicable) -
Works proceed in line with the contract—either per the Engineer’s instruction or with the implemented Variation.
Project Continues as per Contract
📊 Sequence Diagram: Engineer’s Instruction to Completion
Engineer initiates the process by issuing written instructions for works or remedying defects.
Engineer Issues Written Instructions
Contractor acknowledges and confirms understanding of the instructions.
Contractor Acknowledges Receipt
Contractor requests clarification if the instruction is unclear.
Request for Clarification (If Needed)
Engineer responds to ensure full understanding.
Engineer Provides Clarification
Contractor proceeds to carry out the instruction.
Contractor Implements Instructions
Engineer supervises and evaluates compliance and quality.
Engineer Monitors Implementation
Contractor reports task completion to Engineer.
Contractor Reports Completion
Engineer updates Employer on implementation and significant outcomes.
Engineer Informs Employer
Employer reviews and may provide feedback or directives to Engineer.
Employer Provides Feedback
Engineer relays feedback to Contractor.
Relaying Employer’s Feedback
Contractor makes adjustments to the work based on feedback.
Adjustments as per Feedback
Engineer reviews and approves final work after adjustments.
Engineer Approves Final Work
Contractor submits the completed work to Employer.
Contractor Submits Work for Final Approval
Employer confirms project or task completion—sequence ends.
Employer Confirms Project Completion