Views in the last 30 days: 31
Estimated read time: 6 minute(s)
📘 FIDIC 1999 – Clause 4.22
📗 FIDIC 2017 – Clause 4.21
1️⃣ What’s the Point of This Clause Anyway?
Imagine this: you’ve mobilized your team, the site is bustling with activity, your equipment is in place, and materials are on-site. Now ask yourself: who’s in charge of keeping it all safe? 🤔
That’s exactly what Clause 4.22 (1999) and Clause 4.21 (2017) are designed to answer. They lay the foundation for who’s responsible for site security, who’s allowed in, and who should absolutely not be anywhere near the work area.
🎯 The Core Purpose:
- Give the Contractor the duty to secure the site.
- Control access: Only approved people should enter.
- Reduce risks: From theft, vandalism, safety incidents, or even liability claims.
It’s a simple concept — “If it’s your playground, you guard the gate.” But there’s nuance in how FIDIC sets this up, especially when we compare the two editions.
2️⃣ Let’s Break Down the Clauses — Line by Line
🔹 1999 Edition – Clause 4.22 [Security of the Site]
“Unless otherwise stated in the Particular Conditions:
- the Contractor shall be responsible for keeping unauthorised persons off the Site, and
- authorised persons shall be limited to the Contractor’s Personnel and the Employer’s Personnel; and to any other personnel notified to the Contractor, by the Employer or the Engineer, as authorised personnel of the Employer’s other contractors on the Site.”
So what’s this really saying?
🛡️ “Unless otherwise stated…”
This gives the Employer room to tweak things in the Particular Conditions. Smart if you’re dealing with military bases or high-security zones where a different party (like the military police) might run the show.
🚷 “Responsible for keeping unauthorized persons off the Site”
This is straightforward: the Contractor has to act as the site bouncer. Whether that’s with security fencing, cameras, or 24-hour guards — that depends on the project setup.
👷♂️ “Authorized persons shall be limited to…”
Only people officially part of the team — the Contractor’s or Employer’s — are allowed in. Others need to be named and cleared by the Engineer or Employer.
🔹 2017 Edition – Clause 4.21 [Security of the Site]
“The Contractor shall be responsible for the security of the Site, and:
- for keeping unauthorized persons off the Site; and
- authorized persons shall be limited to the Contractor’s Personnel, the Employer’s Personnel, and to any other personnel identified as authorized personnel (including the Employer’s other contractors on the Site), by a Notice from the Employer or the Engineer to the Contractor.”
This sounds similar — but there are subtle but powerful improvements. Let’s unpack:
🔐 “Responsible for the security of the Site”
Notice how this is broader than just keeping unauthorized people out? This implies the Contractor is responsible not just for physical access, but for comprehensive site security. Think:
- Protection of materials from theft 🧱
- Cybersecurity for on-site data systems 💻
- Safety from sabotage or protest intrusion 🪧
📩 “Authorized personnel… identified by Notice”
This tightens up the process — you now need a formal Notice to designate someone as “authorized.” That’s a paper trail, and that’s a good thing when liability questions arise.
3️⃣ What Does It All Mean in Practice?
Here’s the juicy part — how this plays out on a real project.
🔍 Key Takeaways:
- You, the Contractor, own the security piece unless clearly stated otherwise.
- Only approved personnel should be allowed through the gate.
- The Engineer or Employer controls who gets that green light, but they must notify you formally.
🚨 Potential Landmines:
- Shared sites: If other contractors are on the same premises, you must know who guards what. Failing to clarify this could leave gaps in coverage.
- Theft or damage: If materials go missing and your security wasn’t up to scratch, expect some tough conversations (or claims).
- Unauthorized access: Letting “friendly visitors” wander onto the site without proper clearance could backfire if an accident occurs.
4️⃣ How This Clause Talks to Others in the Contract
Contracts aren’t written in isolation, and this clause has a few key friends:
- Clause 2.1 [Right of Access to the Site]: The Employer must give you the Site — but it’s on you to protect it, secure it, and maintain that responsibility until the job is done. Access might be phased or partial at times, but once it’s yours, you’re expected to own the risk unless stated otherwise. Make sure you align with the Employer on handover dates, boundaries, and limitations.
- Clause 4.8 [Health and Safety]: Security overlaps with safety in countless ways. Preventing unauthorized entry isn’t just about theft — it’s about keeping people out of harm’s way. Someone entering a construction zone without clearance could trigger a serious safety violation, cause injury, or worse. The boundary between security and safety is thin, so make sure your site protocols reinforce both.
- Clause 4.6 [Co-operation]: When you have multiple contractors on the same site (common in big infrastructure projects), coordination is not optional — it’s survival. Without clearly defined security zones and mutual protocols, you’ll quickly run into confusion, delays, or conflicting responsibilities. Security fences, access logs, and shared induction processes can avoid many headaches.
- Clause 13 [Variations]: Want drones patrolling the perimeter? Motion sensors and biometric gates? These aren’t freebies. If the Employer requests security enhancements beyond what’s agreed in the contract, that’s a variation — and one that should be priced, programmed, and formally agreed. It’s essential to document changes to avoid absorbing extra cost and scope creep later.
5️⃣ Let’s Play “What If?”
🤔 What if a protest group breaks into the site and damages materials?
If you didn’t take reasonable steps to secure the area, you might be held responsible. However, if you had fencing, security, and followed good practices — that’s an “Exceptional Event” or possibly an Employer risk (see Clauses 17 and 18).
🤔 What if the Employer’s contractor enters without Notice and causes a mess?
They weren’t authorized. You can push back and even claim for resulting costs. The 2017 version is crystal clear — no Notice, no access.
🤔 What if the Employer provides guards, but they fail to prevent theft?
If security duties were transferred (via Particular Conditions), the risk shifts — and you may not be liable. Always check those Particular Conditions closely.
6️⃣ Could This Clause Be Better? Absolutely.
Let’s be honest: both versions are solid, but they leave room for improvement.
✍️ Suggested Upgrades:
- Define “security” clearly — does it include IT systems, personnel checks, drone surveillance?
- Require a site-specific security plan — especially for high-risk areas.
- Spell out multi-tenant rules: who guards shared gates, who’s liable for what?
- For mega projects — bring in an independent Security Coordinator role.
7️⃣ Final Word — Takeaways for Your Toolbox 🧰
📌 The Contractor is the gatekeeper. Unless told otherwise, you protect the Site.
📌 The 2017 edition clarifies roles and raises expectations — but also gives you a stronger position when others step out of line.
📌 Always, always customize this clause for:
- Complex sites
- High-value projects
- High-risk zones
📌 Tie this clause back to:
- Safety
- Cost control
- Claims management