Clause 4.10 – Site Data and the “site-risk cluster”
See how 4.10 turns messy site uncertainty into a structured risk picture that feeds 4.11, 4.12, 8.5 and even 13.7 / 13.6.
When we say Clause 4.10, we’re really talking about this “site-risk cluster”:
📘 1999 – Clause 4.10 [Site Data]
📒 2017 – Clause 4.10 [Use of Site Data], working together with Clause 2.5 [Site Data and Items of Reference], Clause 4.11 and Clause 4.12.
- Plus links into 8.5 (climatic conditions, 2017) and sometimes 13.7 / 13.6 on Change in Law.
1️⃣ Purpose of Clause 4.10 – what is it really trying to do?
If you strip away the legal language, Clause 4.10 does three big things:
1. Employer puts its cards on the table
It forces the Employer to put its cards on the table:
“Here is the site data I have – ground, water, climate, environment, surveys.”
2. Contractor is not a tourist
It tells the Contractor:
“You are not a tourist. You are expected to study this data, inspect the Site, and price the risks like a competent contractor.”
3. Lays the battle-ground for 4.12 & 8.5
It lays the foundation for the foreseeable vs Unforeseeable battle later under Clause 4.12 [Unforeseeable Physical Conditions] and time-risk under Clause 8.5 (climatic conditions in 2017).
So the purpose is not just “give some soil info.” The purpose is to:
- anchor risk allocation at tender stage,
- support a fair claims conversation later,
- and avoid the classic argument:
“You never told me the ground was like this” vs “You should have checked before you priced.”
In simple words:
Clause 4.10 converts “site uncertainty” into a more structured, documented risk picture.
Whoever is supposed to carry which slice of that risk is then argued through 4.11, 4.12, 8.5 and sometimes 13.7 / 13.6.
If a risk was reasonably discoverable from:
- the Site Data,
- a site visit,
- and normal pre-tender diligence by an experienced contractor,
then FIDIC expects the Contractor to have priced it.
If not, that’s when you knock on the door of Clause 4.12.
2️⃣ Clause 4.10 – 1999 vs 2017, line by line (in spirit)
See how the 1999 edition bundles everything into one clause, while 2017 turns it into a “site data system” built around 2.5, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12.
All in one place – disclosure, diligence and price
In the 1999 Yellow Book, Clause 4.10 bundles everything: what the Employer must disclose, what the Contractor is expected to do with it, and what is “deemed” to have been checked before tender.
① Employer’s duty to disclose Site Data
The Employer must, before the Base Date (usually 28 days before the latest date for tender submission), make available all “relevant data in its possession” about:
- sub-surface conditions,
- hydrological conditions,
- environmental aspects of the Site.
And if the Employer gets more such data later (after the Base Date), it must also be made available.
But this is a disclosure duty – not an insurance policy. There is no blanket guarantee that the data is 100% complete or perfectly accurate.
② Contractor’s responsibility to interpret
The clause then swings the spotlight:
The Contractor is responsible for interpreting all such data.
So it’s not enough to say “I looked at the report.” FIDIC expects the Contractor to understand and apply the information properly in its method, programme and price.
③ “Deemed” pre-tender diligence
This is the sharpest part. The Contractor is deemed (treated as if it had in fact done so) to have:
- obtained all necessary information about:
- risks,
- contingencies,
- and other circumstances that could affect the Tender and the Works;
- inspected and examined:
- the Site,
- its surroundings,
- the Site Data,
- and any other information the Employer made available;
- satisfied itself about:
- nature and form of the Site (including sub-surface),
- hydrological and climatic conditions,
- extent and nature of the work and Goods,
- Laws, procedures and labour practices,
- access, accommodation, facilities, personnel, power, transport, water and services.
④ Direct pipeline into Clause 4.11
Clause 4.11 then says: the Accepted Contract Amount is deemed to be sufficient to cover all the obligations and risks that the Contractor has undertaken, based on the data and inspections referred to in Clause 4.10.
That’s the classic 1999 risk-plumbing.
Part of a “site data system”
By 2017, FIDIC realises that bundling everything into Clause 4.10 makes the architecture a bit dense. So they tidy it up and build a system:
- Clause 2.5 – Site Data and Items of Reference (what the Employer must provide).
- Clause 4.10 – Use of Site Data (what the Contractor must do with it).
- Clause 4.11 – how this feeds into price sufficiency.
- Clause 4.12 – what happens when reality goes beyond what was reasonably foreseeable.
1. Clause 2.5 – Employer’s “Site Data” duty moved out and expanded
Now it’s explicit that the Employer must make available, before the Base Date:
- data on topography of the Site,
- sub-surface conditions,
- hydrological, climatic and environmental conditions.
Plus:
- any such data obtained after the Base Date should be provided promptly; and
- survey control points, lines and levels (the “items of reference”) must be fixed in the Employer’s Requirements or notified by the Engineer.
This is more than just soil logs – it is a more holistic picture of the Site.
2. Clause 4.10 – Contractor’s “Use of Site Data”
Now Clause 4.10 says (in spirit):
- The Contractor is responsible for interpreting all Site Data given under Clause 2.5.
The Contractor is deemed, so far as was practicable (cost & time), to have:
- obtained all necessary information about risks and contingencies,
- inspected:
- the Site,
- access routes,
- surroundings,
- the Site Data and other available information;
- satisfied itself about:
- site form and nature (including sub-surface),
- hydrological and climatic conditions, including their effects at the Site,
- extent and nature of Works and Goods,
- Laws, procedures, labour practices,
- access, accommodation, facilities, personnel, power, transport, water and utilities.
You can see it’s very similar to 1999, but:
- access to the Site and the effect of climate are more deliberately emphasised; and
- the clause is now clearly “upstream” of both 4.11 and 8.5 (for climate-related EOT).
3. Clause 4.11 – even tighter integration
In 2017, Clause 4.11 explicitly ties the sufficiency of the Accepted Contract Amount to:
- the Site Data,
- the Contractor’s interpretation of it,
- the information obtained, inspections and examinations under 4.10,
- and the Contractor’s design responsibilities.
This gives the Employer a clean argumentative route:
🧩 C. Tiny visual: who does what? 1999 vs 2017
A quick side-by-side to show how the Employer and Contractor divide up Site Data responsibilities under both editions.
| Question | Employer’s job (1999/2017) | Contractor’s job (1999/2017) |
|---|---|---|
| Who provides Site Data? |
1999: in Clause 4.10. 2017: in Clause 2.5. |
– |
| What kind of data? | Ground, hydrology, environment (1999) + topography & climate (2017). | – |
| Who interprets the data? | – | Clause 4.10 – Contractor must interpret the data. |
| Who does pre-tender investigations & inspections? | – | Contractor is deemed to have done them, to the extent practicable. |
| What sets the baseline for “you priced this”? | – | Clause 4.11 – you priced the risks you should reasonably have foreseen. |
Watch this next Video
Use these to reinforce how Site Data plugs into the wider risk and price story in FIDIC.
What You Don't Know About FIDIC's Contract Price Could Cost You
Inside FIDIC Yellow Book 2017 – Real World Project Flow
3️⃣ Key interpretations and implications – where do people fight?
This is where Clause 4.10 stops being abstract drafting and starts shaping real money, real delay and real disputes.
Disclosure ≠ insurance policy
A common misconception on site is:
“Employer gave us the ground report, so Employer must guarantee it.”
That’s not what Clause 4.10 does.
- The Employer must disclose what it has.
- It must not hide critical information.
- But it does not promise that the ground report captures every lens of sand, every boulder, every pocket of contamination.
Unless the Particular Conditions add an express warranty for specific items, 4.10 / 2.5 is more about good faith disclosure than about insurance.
So one key interpretative question is:
If a geotechnical report turns out to be incomplete, is that:
- “normal limitation of data” (Contractor still carries foreseeability risk), or
- “Employer misrepresentation / breach” (Employer carries more of the risk)?
The answer usually depends on:
- how the report was described (“for guidance only” vs “basis of design”),
- how obvious the gaps were,
- what investigations are normal in that market.
“Shall be deemed to have…” – the brutal phrase
The phrase “shall be deemed to have” is deliberately brutal.
It stops a Contractor later saying things like:
- “We didn’t have time to investigate access properly.”
- “We couldn’t really study the climate data.”
FIDIC’s response is:
“You are deemed to have done what a prudent tenderer should do, within reasonable cost and time.”
So in disputes, the cross-examination often goes like this:
- “You had the Site Data, yes?”
- “You visited the Site, yes?”
- “Is it standard in your industry to assume X or Y without further checks?”
The judge/arbitrator is then quietly applying the “experienced contractor at the Base Date” test.
The practical implication:
- If the risk was reflected in the available data or obvious from a site inspection → it is very hard for the Contractor to say it was Unforeseeable.
- If the risk was outside what a reasonable contractor would anticipate given the data and normal practice → Clause 4.12 becomes the Contractor’s best friend.
Same core risk, neater wiring
It’s easy to over-dramatise the change, but the core risk allocation is similar. The key differences are:
1. Separation of duties
- 1999: Employer’s disclosure and Contractor’s interpretation all live in 4.10.
- 2017: Employer’s data duty is in 2.5, Contractor’s use in 4.10. It’s architecturally cleaner and ties neatly into setting out and climate.
2. Climatic risk brought to the foreground
- 2017 specifically links climatic data and “effects of climatic conditions at the Site” into 4.10 and 8.5.
- This makes it easier to benchmark what is “normal bad weather” vs “exceptionally adverse”.
3. Better wiring into the claims and design ecosystem
- 2017 builds a tight loop: 2.5 → 4.10 → 4.11 → 4.12 / 8.5 (plus design obligations).
That’s helpful when you’re trying to tell a story in a DAAB or arbitration:
“Here is what we knew, here is what we reasonably could have known, here is what went beyond that.”
🧩 Dispute hotspots: where do people actually fight? Quick map
Use this as a checklist when you sense a 4.10 / 4.12 dispute forming. Most DAAB and arbitration debates sit in one of these rows.
| Fight theme | Typical question | Clauses in play |
|---|---|---|
| Data vs warranty | Was the ground report just “for guidance”, or was it the promised basis of design? | 2.5 / 4.10, Particular Conditions, misrepresentation principles |
| Deemed diligence | Did a prudent contractor, at the Base Date, have enough information to foresee this condition? | 4.10, 4.11, Base Date definition, industry practice |
| Unforeseeable physical conditions | Is this genuinely outside what could be anticipated from Site Data + reasonable Site visit? | 4.10, 4.12, tender queries, geotechnical records |
| Climate vs weather | Is this “nasty but normal” weather or “exceptionally adverse” climate deviation? | 4.10, 8.5, historical weather data, programme impact |
| Storytelling in claims | Can you join the dots: what we knew → what we checked → what surprised us → cost & time effect? | 2.5, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 20.2 / 21.1 (claims & dispute procedure) |
Watch this next Video
These videos help you connect Clause 4.10’s risk story with termination strategy and claims management in live projects.
FIDIC termination process – complete step-by-step guide
EPC Contract Changes and Claims Management Made EASY
4️⃣ How Clause 4.10 talks to other clauses – the hidden wiring 🧩
4.10 is the middle node in a network of clauses: 2.5 → 4.10 → 4.11 → 4.12 / 8.5 → 20 / 21. This is the path your claim story usually has to follow.
Clause network map 2.5 → 4.10 → 4.11 → 4.12 / 8.5 → 20 / 21
Every serious 4.10 dispute ends up being a story about this chain. If you can walk a DAAB through it step by step, your claim suddenly feels inevitable instead of emotional.
2.5 – what the Employer discloses 4.10 – what the Contractor is deemed to know 4.11 / 4.12 / 8.5 – how money and time move
4.11: locking the price to what 4.10 assumed
4.11 says (in effect):
The Contractor is deemed to have based its Accepted Contract Amount on the:
- Site Data,
- information obtained,
- inspections and examinations,
- interpretation under 4.10,
- and its design obligations.
So, when a claim arrives:
Employer will say:
“This is exactly the kind of risk you should have priced. See 4.10 (deemed diligence) and 4.11 (you based your price on that).”
Contractor will say:
“No reasonable contractor could have foreseen this particular twist even if it did everything 4.10 expects.”
And then we’re straight into the 4.12 debate.
4.12: the safety valve – but only if you clear the foreseeability test
4.12 is the safety valve. It gives:
- EOT, and
- Cost (in many FIDIC forms),
for Unforeseeable physical conditions at the Site.
But what does “Unforeseeable” mean?
It’s judged by what an experienced contractor would reasonably foresee at the Base Date, having:
- the Site Data,
- access to the Site,
- and the opportunity to inspect and investigate (within reasonable cost/time).
So 4.10 is the factual foundation:
The better curated and clearer the Site Data and tender process, the more robust the foreseeability baseline.
The weaker and more chaotic the Site Data, the more sympathy arbitrators tend to have for Contractors under 4.12.
Base Date: the pricing horizon – and what happens when data comes late
The Base Date (often 28 days before the latest tender submission date) is the cut-off line:
- Conditions existing before the Base Date are normally assumed to be priced into the Contract.
- Changes after the Base Date may create entitlement (under 4.12 or 13.7/13.6).
If critical Site Data is issued shortly after the Base Date, you get a grey zone:
Employer:
“We gave you the report before award, you could have allowed for it.”
Contractor:
“But the Base Date had passed; your own risk architecture says my pricing horizon was earlier.”
Good practice?
Align the Base Date with the final data package or clearly state in the Particular Conditions how late data interacts with 4.10 / 4.11 / 4.12.
2.5 + 4.10 + 8.5: a mini-system for climate risk
In 2017:
8.5 defines “exceptionally adverse climatic conditions” partly by reference to:
- climatic data the Employer provided under 2.5, and/or
- publicly available climatic data.
Again, 4.10 is the Contractor’s “You should have planned for this” clause.
Questions a DAAB will ask:
- Were the rainfall/temperature/wind levels actually outside what a competent contractor would forecast, given the historical data?
- Or were they “bad but foreseeable”?
So the combination of 2.5 + 4.10 + 8.5 creates a neat little system for climate-related time risk.
🧩 Clause-network cheat sheet Storyline builder
When you prepare a claim or defence, walk through this table as a mini-checklist. It forces you to connect Site Data, foreseeability and the claims engine.
| Step | Clause(s) | Key question |
|---|---|---|
| 1. What was disclosed? | 2.5, tender clarifications | What Site Data did the Employer actually provide (and how was it described)? |
| 2. What should we have known? | 4.10 | What would an experienced contractor reasonably foresee from that data and a sensible Site visit? |
| 3. What did we price? | 4.11 | Is this risk one that 4.11 expects to be inside the Accepted Contract Amount? |
| 4. What surprised us? | 4.12 / 8.5 | Are we dealing with genuinely Unforeseeable physical conditions or exceptionally adverse climate? |
| 5. How did we claim? | 20 / 21 | Did we tell the story clearly in the notice, particulars, causation and quantum under the claims/disputes clauses? |
Watch this next Video
These two videos plug directly into this wiring: one on changes in law and Base Date, and one on the claims engine under Clause 20.2.5.
Adjustments for Changes in Law – FIDIC YB 1999 13.7 vs 2017 13.6
Mastering FIDIC Yellow Book 2017: Clause 20.2.5 Explained with Legal and Financial Insights
5️⃣ “What if” scenarios – how Clause 4.10 comes alive on site 🏗️
Let’s walk through some story-like scenarios. Each one shows how 4.10 anchors what was foreseeable, what becomes Unforeseeable, and how that flows into 4.12, 8.5 and 13.7/13.6.
The surprise rock shelf under the pump house
Classic 4.10 + 4.12 battle: “normal variability between boreholes” vs “game-changing rock shelf”.
The Employer’s tender data includes:
- 3 boreholes near a proposed pump house, drilled to 6 m.
- Reports show medium-dense sand and silt, no rock.
- Contractor designs spread footings at ~3 m depth.
On site, at 4.5 m under one corner, they hit a hard rock shelf requiring:
- blasting,
- redesign to piled foundations,
- delay to critical path.
Now what?
Employer’s narrative:
- We disclosed all data we had, in line with 4.10 / 2.5.
- You are responsible for interpreting it and for reasonable pre-tender investigations.
- You are deemed to have considered that ground can vary between boreholes; it’s not new that one borehole cannot speak for the entire area.
Contractor’s narrative:
- Three shallow boreholes are not a full GI for a critical structure.
- An experienced contractor would foresee some variability but not a solid rock shelf that fundamentally changes design.
- No reasonable pre-tender exploratory work (within cost/time constraints) would have revealed that exact condition.
Therefore, this is an Unforeseeable physical condition under Clause 4.12 → EOT + Cost.
It tests whether the Contractor’s expectations were realistic given the data and standard practice.
If your tender file shows no real consideration of sub-surface variability, 4.10 and 4.11 will be used against you.
A brutal monsoon vs “normal bad monsoon”
Weather vs climate: when does “very wet” become “exceptionally adverse” under 8.5, and how does 4.10 frame it?
Employer’s Site Data includes 20-year rainfall stats, monthly averages and extremes.
Contractor programmes earthworks with some float for monsoon but keeps them tight.
The actual year sees rainfall consistently in the top 5% of the 20-year range, flooding works and wiping out the float.
Claim: EOT under 8.5, plus prolongation costs.
Employer’s stance:
- You saw the rainfall data under 2.5.
- You are deemed by 4.10 to have considered its effect and to have allowed in your programme for typical monsoon behaviour and reasonable variation.
- This year is on the high side but not outside the historical envelope.
Contractor’s stance:
- The actual pattern is a cluster of days at or above the historical maxima – that’s exceptionally adverse.
- No prudent contractor would programme as if the worst few years in 20 will all repeat in the same season.
Again, 4.10 frames what a “prudent programme” looks like. It doesn’t decide the claim alone, but it shapes how the EOT argument under 8.5 is judged.
Access route suddenly closed by the authorities
Is this an access risk priced via 4.10/4.11, or a change in law/authority decision under 13.7 (1999) / 13.6 (2017)?
Tender drawings show Site access via an existing bridge.
Site Data mentions nothing unusual about the bridge.
Six months into the Contract, authorities restrict heavy vehicles on that bridge due to structural issues.
Contractor must route via a 40 km detour.
Is this:
- An access risk priced under 4.10 / 4.11 (“you are deemed to have checked access and logistics”), or
- A change in law / authority regulation under 13.7 (1999) / 13.6 (2017)?
The answer depends on:
- Whether the closure is a new decision (post-Base Date), or a risk that was already known/foreseeable.
- Whether the Particular Conditions allocate specific “access guarantee” duties to the Employer.
- How detailed the Site Data and drawings were on access and any warning signs.
Clause 4.10 again is used to ask: did the Contractor do enough pre-tender thinking about access risk?
Contaminated soil discovered, but environmental data was vague
How far does “deemed to have obtained information about environment and risks” go when the data room is thin?
Employer’s data room included:
- an old environmental note saying “some industrial history in the area”,
- but no formal contamination survey.
During excavation, the Contractor finds heavily contaminated soil needing special disposal at high cost.
Is this:
- Contractor risk, because “you are deemed to have obtained all information about environment and risks”, or
- Unforeseeable, because the Employer did not provide serious environmental data and a full contamination survey would be unreasonable at tender stage?
Here, Clause 4.10 naturally leads to questions like:
- Is it standard in that market to carry out contamination tests pre-tender?
- Did the Employer have more specific information and fail to disclose it (breach of 2.5 / 4.10)?
- Did the Contractor raise any tender queries or qualifications around contamination?
🧩 How to use these scenarios in practice Exam & site checklist
When you get a “surprise on site”, ask yourself:
- What did 2.5 / the Site Data actually say? (Were we clearly warned, vaguely warned, or not warned?)
- What would a prudent contractor have done under 4.10? (More investigations? More float? Different methodology?)
- Is this really outside that foreseeability envelope? (If yes, you’re into 4.12 or 8.5 territory.)
- Which clause is the real engine of the claim? 4.12 for physical conditions, 8.5 for climate, 13.7 / 13.6 for legal/authority changes.
For exams, be ready to name the clauses in sequence. On live projects, be ready to show your tender file and reasoning – that’s where 4.10 either protects you or haunts you.
Watch: from scenarios to full contracts Video
These videos zoom out from individual scenarios to the bigger picture of contract price, risk allocation and real-world FIDIC Yellow Book project flow.
What You Don't Know About FIDIC's Contract Price Could Cost You
Inside FIDIC Yellow Book 2017 – Real World Project Flow
6️⃣ Suggestions for clarity and improvement – how would you tweak this in Particular Conditions?
If you’re tailoring Clause 4.10 for a real project, here are practical ways to reduce future disputes without rewriting the whole Yellow/Red/Silver Book.
Turn “Site Data” into a curated register, not a fuzzy PDF dump
Don’t leave “Site Data” as a fuzzy cloud of PDFs.
In an annex, list:
- Every document regarded as “Site Data” under Clause 2.5 / 4.10:
- Geotechnical reports and borehole logs
- Topographic surveys
- Environmental assessments
- Climate statistics
- Utility and services maps
- Old as-built drawings, etc.
For each item:
- Title & revision
- date issued,
- who prepared it (consultant / authority / Employer),
- status or reliability tag (e.g. “indicative”, “for design basis”, “for information only”).
This way, when a dispute arises, you can point to specific items:
“This was in the Site Data Register; you are deemed to have considered it.”
Or equally:
“This risk never featured in the Site Data Register; that supports our 4.12 argument.”
| Item | Example entry |
|---|---|
| Document | GI-01 – Main Plant Boreholes (Rev B) |
| Date / Author | 12-Jan-2025 · ABC Geotechnical Consultants |
| Type | Geotechnical report – boreholes to 25 m depth |
| Status tag | “For design basis – foundations package” |
Decide how far the Employer stands behind key data
You can soften or harden risk transfer by adding language like:
More defensive Employer position:
“The Employer does not warrant the completeness or accuracy of the Site Data, except as expressly stated in the Employer’s Requirements.”
Or, for a more collaborative project:
“The Employer warrants that the contamination test results in Annex X are an accurate reflection of the conditions in the sampled areas.”
This doesn’t turn the Employer into an insurer of all subsurface conditions, but it can:
- give Contractors enough comfort to reduce risk contingencies, and
- focus warranty on data that really matters (e.g. contamination, mine workings, UXO).
Reassure everyone that 4.12 still works
You could add a short clarifying sub-clause in Particular Conditions such as (paraphrased):
“Nothing in Clauses 4.10 and 4.11 shall prevent the Contractor from entitlement under Clause 4.12 where the physical conditions meet the definition of ‘Unforeseeable’.”
This doesn’t change FIDIC’s logic (it already works like that), but it reduces employer arguments along the lines of:
“Because you are deemed to have investigated everything, nothing can ever be Unforeseeable.”
Bring BIM, GIS and models inside the Site Data conversation
On modern projects, Site Data isn’t just PDFs. It’s:
- BIM models,
- digital terrain models,
- GIS databases.
You can:
- state whether these digital models are part of “Site Data”;
- define whether they are “for information only” or “for design and construction”;
- clarify what happens if models and 2D drawings conflict.
This avoids the future debate:
“We relied on the BIM model for ground levels” vs “No, only the 2D drawings counted.”
✅ E. A quick pre-tender checklist Guidance note
You could even embed a short guidance note in tender documents:
For Employer:
- Have we released all relevant Site Data, not just what suits us?
- Is the Base Date consistent with the final data issue date?
For Contractor:
- Have we documented what Site Data we reviewed?
- Have we recorded key assumptions about ground, climate, access, contamination?
- Have we raised clarifications where data looked thin or contradictory?
This turns 4.10 from a trap into a shared good-faith exercise.
Watch: from clause tweaks to whole contracts Video
These two videos help you step back from micro-edits and see how 4.10 sits inside the wider FIDIC contract strategy.
FIDIC Suit Book 2017: What Every Engineer Must Know
Complete FIDIC Contracts Guide 2024: Construction & Engineering Contract Templates Explained
Sample Letters – Clause 4.10 Site Data
[Your Company Name] [Your Company Address] [City, Postal Code] [Date] [Recipient’s Name] [Recipient’s Position] [Recipient’s Company Name] [Recipient’s Address] [City, Postal Code] Subject: Notice of Discovery – Geological/Archaeological Interest Dear [Recipient’s Name], In accordance with the Contract, we hereby notify you of the discovery of an item of geological and/or archaeological interest at the Site. We have taken steps to protect the find and await your instructions regarding its handling and any necessary adjustments to the Work. Please advise on further procedures. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Position]
[Your Company Name] [Your Company Address] [City, Postal Code] [Date] [Recipient’s Name] [Recipient’s Position] [Recipient’s Company Name] [Recipient’s Address] [City, Postal Code] Subject: Proposals for Commencement and Execution of Works Dear [Recipient’s Name], We submit herewith our proposals for commencing and proceeding with the execution of the Works as required by the Contract. Kindly review and provide any further instructions or approvals needed to ensure timely progress. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Position]
[Your Company Name] [Your Company Address] [City, Postal Code] [Date] [Recipient’s Name] [Recipient’s Position] [Recipient’s Company Name] [Recipient’s Address] [City, Postal Code] Subject: Application for Extension of Time – Clause 4.10/4.12 Dear [Recipient’s Name], Pursuant to the Contract, we hereby give notice of an event occurring within the past 28 days that entitles us to an extension of time for completion. The event concerns [brief description: e.g., unforeseen ground condition not disclosed in Site Data]. Supporting evidence is attached. We request your assessment and adjustment to the Completion Date as appropriate. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Position]
[Your Company Name] [Your Company Address] [City, Postal Code] [Date] [Recipient’s Name] [Recipient’s Position] [Recipient’s Company Name] [Recipient’s Address] [City, Postal Code] Subject: Interim/Final Particulars of Claim – Clause 4.10 Site Data Dear [Recipient’s Name], We submit the attached particulars regarding [brief description of the claim event] as required by the Contract. The particulars include all relevant supporting documentation and outline the impacts on time, cost, and the Works. We look forward to your review and response. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Position]
[Your Company Name] [Your Company Address] [City, Postal Code] [Date] [Recipient’s Name] [Recipient’s Position] [Recipient’s Company Name] [Recipient’s Address] [City, Postal Code] Subject: Communication Regarding Clause 4.10 Site Data Dear [Recipient’s Name], I am writing to address specific issues or updates related to Clause 4.10 Site Data as per our FIDIC contract. Summary of Issues/Updates: [Briefly summarize the issues, uncertainties, or discrepancies discovered with the Site Data.] Implications: [Clearly explain the implications of these discrepancies on the project, supported by evidence such as measurements or data comparisons.] Requests/Clarifications: [State any additional data or clarifications needed to resolve the issue.] Potential Impact: [Emphasize the potential impact on construction works or design due to the discrepancies in the Site Data.] Proposed Actions/Solutions: [Propose necessary actions or potential solutions to address the concerns effectively.] We believe that addressing these matters promptly will ensure the smooth progression of the project and prevent any potential delays or disputes. We kindly request a meeting or discussion at your earliest convenience to further discuss and resolve these matters. Please find attached any relevant technical reports or findings that support our claims. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Position] [Your Contact Information]
[Your Name] [Your Position] [Your Company Name] [Date] [Recipient Name] [Recipient Position] [Recipient Company Name] [Recipient Address] Subject: Addressing Concerns Pertaining to Clause 4.10 Site Data Dear [Recipient Name], I hope this letter finds you well. I am reaching out to discuss our mutual interests and the importance of Clause 4.10 Site Data in our ongoing project. As we both understand, effective data management is pivotal for the successful completion of any construction endeavor. We have observed certain challenges arising from the current implementation of Clause 4.10. These challenges have potential implications on our project’s timeline, budget, and overall risk profile. Specifically, [mention specific concerns or issues related to the clause]. To support our concerns, we have referenced [provide supporting documents or clauses from other contracts that offer more favorable terms]. We believe that by addressing these concerns, we can enhance the clarity and fairness of the clause, ensuring that both our interests are safeguarded. We propose the following revisions or amendments to Clause 4.10: [Suggested Revision 1] [Suggested Revision 2] [Further suggestions] Our aim is to foster open communication and a successful partnership. We believe that by collaboratively addressing these concerns, we can build a stronger working relationship and ensure the project’s success. We kindly suggest a joint review or negotiation session at your earliest convenience to discuss and resolve the issues highlighted. Your insights and feedback will be invaluable in this process. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. We look forward to working closely with you to address these concerns. Warm regards, [Your Name] [Your Position] [Your Company Name] [Contact Information]
Clause 4.10 Site Data Checklists
| Task | Description | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
| Data Collection | Gather all relevant site data, including sub-surface, hydrological, and environmental aspects. | Employer / Contractor |
| Data Verification | Ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the collected data. | Dedicated Data Team |
| Documentation | Maintain thorough documentation of all collected site data. | Data Management Team |
| Training | Provide training to relevant parties on the interpretation and application of the site data. | HR / Training Department |
| Communication | Establish effective communication channels for sharing and discussing site data. | Project Manager |
| Ethical Considerations | Adhere to ethical principles of data privacy and protection. | Ethics Board |
| Task | Description | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
| Data Sharing | Share the collected site data with all relevant parties, including the Contractor. | Employer |
| Data Interpretation | Interpret the provided site data to understand its implications on the project. | Contractor |
| Risk Assessment | Identify potential risks based on the site data and develop mitigation strategies. | Risk Management Team |
| Schedule Alignment | Align the project schedule with the collection and analysis of site data. | Project Manager |
| Standardized Protocols | Establish standardized protocols for data management and reporting. | Data Management Team |
| Budget Allocation | Allocate the necessary budget for data collection, analysis, and any associated activities. | CFO |
| Task | Description | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
| Regular Monitoring | Regularly monitor and analyze the site data to ensure its continued relevance and accuracy. | Data Management Team |
| Audits & Inspections | Conduct regular audits and inspections to ensure compliance with Clause 4.10. | Audit Team |
| Performance Evaluation | Implement performance evaluation mechanisms to assess the efficiency of data-related tasks. | HR |
| Issue Resolution | Address any issues or discrepancies related to site data promptly. | Project Manager |
| Database Maintenance | Maintain a comprehensive database of site data for future reference and analysis. | IT / Data Management Team |
| Ethical Audits | Conduct regular audits to detect any potential misuse or manipulation of the data. | Ethics Board |