1️⃣ Purpose of Sub-Clause 13.7 (1999) and Sub-Clause 13.6 (2017)
These clauses are the contract’s built-in “change-in-law shock absorber”, protecting the Contractor when the legal landscape shifts after the Base Date.
These clauses provide a mechanism to adjust the Contract Price (and in 2017, also Time for Completion) if there are changes in applicable laws after the Base Date that affect the Contractor’s performance, so the Contractor is not unfairly punished by external legal changes.
In the 1999 Yellow Book, Sub-Clause 13.7 focuses on how a change in the Laws of the Country can impact the Contractor’s costs and, indirectly, time. The core idea is straightforward: the Contract Price you tendered should not quietly absorb extra cost that only exists because the law changed after the Base Date.
Key Features in 1999:
- Covers cost impact of legislative change on the Contractor’s performance.
- Limited to “Laws of the Country” where the Site is located — not foreign or purely international rules.
- Only triggered by changes after the Base Date; anything in force on or before the Base Date is assumed to be priced.
- Contractor may be entitled to:
- an Extension of Time (EOT), and
- payment for the resulting cost increase, with corresponding adjustment to the Contract Price.
- No dedicated notice deadline in 13.7 itself; the Contractor must rely on the general claims process in Sub-Clause 20.1 (1999 edition) for timing and procedure.
In the 2017 Yellow Book, the same concept is carried forward but renumbered and tightened. Sub-Clause 13.6 keeps the protective intent of 13.7, while integrating it much more clearly with the modern claims procedure in Clause 20.2.
Enhancements in 📒 2017:
- Expressly covers both delay and Cost — not just price; Time for Completion can be adjusted as well.
- Direct tie-in with Sub-Clause 20.2 (2017 Claims Procedure), making 13.6 live inside the formal claim workflow.
- Explicit Notice requirement: the Contractor must give a notice of claim within 28 days of becoming aware (or when it should have become aware) of the change in law and its impact.
- Full claim procedure applies, including detailed substantiation of cause, effect, and quantum — no more casual, end-of-project “we were hit by new laws” arguments.
2️⃣ Breakdown of the Clause Texts
📘 Sub-Clause 13.7 (FIDIC 1999) – Verbatim Excerpt:
“The Contract Price shall be adjusted to take account of any increase or decrease in cost resulting from a change in the Laws of the Country (including the introduction of new Laws and the repeal or modification of existing Laws) or in the judicial or official governmental interpretation of such Laws, made after the Base Date, which affect the Contractor in the performance of obligations under the Contract.”1. FIDIC Yellow Book 19…
💡 Key Takeaways:
- ✅ Focused on cost increase or decrease.
- 📌 Includes new laws, repeals, modifications, and official interpretations.
- 🚫 No mention of delays or time-related consequences.
- ⏳ No stated timeline or process for raising claims.
📕 Sub-Clause 13.6 (FIDIC 2017) – Summarized with Verbatim Highlights:
“If the Contractor suffers (or will suffer) delay and/or incurs (or will incur) Cost as a result of any change in the Laws of the Country… after the Base Date, the Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer.”
“The Contractor shall, within 84 days after becoming aware… submit particulars.”
“The Engineer shall proceed under Sub-Clause 3.7 to agree or determine…”1. FIDIC Yellow Book 20…
💡 Key Takeaways:
- ✅ Applies to both Cost and Time for Completion.
- ⏱️ Requires notice within 28 days of awareness.
- 📑 Detailed claim submission within 84 days.
- 🔄 Process is governed by Sub-Clauses 3.7 (determination) and 20.2 (Claims).
3️⃣ Key Interpretations and Implications
✅ Similar in Principle:
- Both clauses protect the Contractor from unexpected legal or regulatory changes made after the Base Date.
- Focused on maintaining commercial balance.
🔄 Major Differences:
| Feature | FIDIC 1999 – 13.7 | FIDIC 2017 – 13.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Impact Covered | Cost only | Cost and Time |
| Triggers | Change in law or its interpretation | Same |
| Notice Requirement | ❌ None | ✅ 28 days |
| Detail Submission | ❌ None | ✅ 84 days |
| Determination Process | ❌ Not defined | ✅ Under Sub-Clause 3.7 |
| Claim Procedure | Implicit link to 20.1 | Explicitly tied to 20.2 |
🧾 Clause 13.7 / 13.6 Quiz – Adjustments for Changes in Legislation
4️⃣ Cross-Referencing with Other Clauses
Let’s see how Sub-Clause 13.7 (1999) and 13.6 (2017) are connected with the rest of the contract – we’re going beyond the surface here to unpack the hidden wiring of this change-in-law clause.
Before you even begin to apply Sub-Clause 13.7 (1999) or 13.6 (2017), you need to ask a very precise question: what exactly qualifies as a “change in law” for this project?
📘 1999 – Sub-Clause 1.1.6.5
“Laws” means all national (or state) legislation, statutes, ordinances and other laws, and regulations and
by-laws of any legally constituted public authority.
¹ FIDIC Yellow Book 1999 – Definitions
📕 2017 – Sub-Clause 1.1.49
“Laws” in 2017 goes further: it includes treaties, decrees, orders, international law, and provincial laws,
in addition to the national legislation and regulations already covered in 1999.
¹ FIDIC Yellow Book 2017 – Definitions
Why it matters: the 2017 definition is more inclusive. It anticipates multinational infrastructure projects and cross-border regulations (think WTO rules, Basel norms, environmental treaties, regional or provincial regulations).
This wider net means that more types of legal instruments can potentially trigger a 13.6 claim, which subtly expands the Employer’s exposure if those changes happen after the Base Date.
Clause 1.13 is the Contractor’s baseline duty to follow the law of the land. It’s the “no excuses” starting point of the relationship: the Contractor must comply with all applicable laws, licences, permits and approvals in carrying out the Works.
In both 1999 and 2017, this duty appears – but the 2017 version goes much deeper in Sub-Clause 1.13(b)–(d):
- The Contractor must pay fees, obtain permits, and assist the Employer in obtaining required licences.
- If the Contractor suffers delay or incurs Cost because the Employer fails to obtain a required permit, the Contractor can claim under Sub-Clause 20.2 for Cost and EOT.¹
Connection to Clause 13.6: Clause 1.13 says, “You must comply with all applicable laws.” Clause 13.6 then adds, “but if those laws change after the Base Date and that change hurts you, you will be compensated.”
Think of Clause 1.13 as the duty, and Clause 13.6 as the relief valve when that duty suddenly becomes more expensive or more complicated because of a new legal requirement.
This is where things get procedural – and also where the real risk lies for the Contractor. You can have a perfect change in law fact pattern and still lose the claim if you mishandle the procedure.
🧭 FIDIC 1999 – Sub-Clause 20.1
- Mentions a 28-day window to notify the Engineer of a claim.
- But Clause 13.7 itself is silent on how it ties into Clause 20.1, which leaves room for argument: “Does the 28-day time bar apply to change-in-law claims or not?”
- This ambiguity has fuelled many disputes on whether late “change in law” notifications should still be paid.
🛡️ FIDIC 2017 – Sub-Clause 20.2
In 2017, things become crystal clear. If the Contractor wants Cost or time because of a law change under 13.6, it must follow the 20.2 claims procedure:
- ⏱️ Give a Notice of Claim within 28 days under 20.2.1 from becoming aware (or when it should have become aware) of the event.
-
📄 Submit a Fully Detailed Claim within 84 days under 20.2.4, including:
- the legal basis for the claim (what changed, and why it fits the definition of “Laws”),
- all relevant records and documents, and
- the specific amount of Cost and/or extension of time requested.¹
- 🛠️ Sub-Clause 20.2.6 even covers ongoing impacts – e.g. a law that requires costly emissions monitoring every month. You may need to file interim monthly claims until the impact stops.
Bottom line: If the Contractor doesn’t follow 20.2’s process, even a genuine, textbook change-in-law claim under 13.6 can fail. The procedural linkage is not “nice to have” – it’s absolutely crucial.
Once a claim is submitted under 13.6 and processed via 20.2, it lands on the Engineer’s desk under Sub-Clause 3.7. This is where the law-change story turns into an actual decision on entitlement.
Here’s the key twist: under 3.7, the Engineer must act in a way that is neutral and fair, not simply as the Employer’s representative.¹
- 👥 Sub-Clause 3.7.1 – The Engineer first tries to facilitate an agreement between the Parties.
- 📩 If no agreement is reached, Sub-Clause 3.7.2 kicks in and the Engineer issues a formal Determination.
- ⏳ Under Sub-Clause 3.7.3, the Engineer must issue that determination within 42 days of receiving the claim, unless a different period is agreed.
Why this matters: without 3.7’s structured, neutral determination process, Sub-Clause 13.6 would be a toothless promise. The trio of 13.6 + 20.2 + 3.7 is what makes change-in-law relief contractually enforceable.
In the 1999 edition, the Engineer makes determinations under Sub-Clause 3.5. Compared to 2017’s 3.7 framework, this is noticeably more informal:
- There is no explicit neutrality language – the Engineer’s impartiality is more assumed than spelled out.
- There is no detailed process for consultation or set timelines for issuing determinations.
- As a result, the Engineer enjoys broader discretion, and the Contractor has fewer procedural protections if a change-in-law claim drifts or stalls.
By contrast, the 2017 edition converts that discretionary role into a more transparent, time-bound process with checks and obligations on both sides.
When you advise on 13.7 (1999) or 13.6 (2017), you’re never arguing just one clause. You are really arguing a bundle:
- the definition of “Laws” (1.1.6.5 / 1.1.49),
- the duty to comply (1.13),
- the claims engine (20.1 / 20.2 + 20.2.6 for continuing effects), and
- the determination process (3.5 / 3.7).
Miss any part of this wiring and your change-in-law position becomes vulnerable – either on scope (what counts as “Laws”), on procedure (time bar, detailed claim), or on outcome (how the Engineer actually decides).
Here’s how the key clauses interact around Sub-Clause 13.7 (1999) and 13.6 (2017):
| Clause | Role in 13.7 (1999) / 13.6 (2017) |
|---|---|
| 1.1.6.5 / 1.1.49 Definition | Defines “Laws” – sets the scope of which legal instruments can trigger a change in law claim. 2017’s broader definition (including treaties, decrees, international and provincial law) widens the net of potential Employer liability. |
| 1.13 Duty | Contractor’s ongoing duty to comply with all applicable laws, licences and permits. Clause 13.6 then acts as the compensation mechanism when that duty becomes more onerous due to post-Base-Date legal changes. |
| 20.1 / 20.2 Claims Engine | Provides the procedure for invoking 13.7 / 13.6. In 1999, the link between 13.7 and 20.1 is vague, creating arguments about time bars. In 2017, 20.2 clearly governs 13.6 claims with strict notice and fully detailed claim requirements. |
| 3.5 (1999) Old Determination | Engineer’s determination power in 1999 – relatively informal, with less emphasis on neutrality and no firm timetable. Provides an outcome, but with less procedural protection for Contractors. |
| 3.7 (2017) New Determination | Engineer’s agreement/determination in 2017 – a more formal, neutral and time-bound process. It converts 13.6 + 20.2 claims into enforceable outcomes via a structured decision-making framework. |
| 20.2.6 (2017) Continuing Effects | Covers claims with continuing effects – for example, recurring monthly costs from new regulatory monitoring obligations. Allows the Contractor to submit interim claims until the change in law stops having financial or time impact. |
5️⃣ What If Scenarios?
🟠 What if a new Indian tax law increases GST from 18% to 20% during the project?
✅ The Contractor can claim increased cost:
- In both editions, as it’s a post–Base Date change.
- In 2017, must issue notice within 28 days, then submit details in 84 days.
🟠 A court ruling redefines hazardous waste handling, increasing disposal costs. Can the Contractor claim?
✅ Yes, because:
- Judicial interpretations are included under both clauses.
- In 2017, must comply with Sub-Clause 20.2 for timing and substantiation.
🟠 What if the change occurred before the Base Date but its implications were realized later?
❌ Not compensable under either clause. The date of legal enactment or interpretation determines eligibility — not when its effects are understood.
6️⃣ Suggestions for Clarity and Improvement
Let’s roll up our sleeves and see how we can sharpen this clause for real-world use. Because let’s face it — legislative changes aren’t rare anymore!
🚨 A. Why This Clause Needs More Precision
Here’s the thing: while 13.7 (1999) and 13.6 (2017) are both solid, they leave a few open ends that could lead to misunderstandings or even disputes, especially in cross-border or regulatory-heavy projects.
Common Frictions:
- 🤷♂️ What counts as a “change in law”? (Especially with retrospective amendments?)
- 📅 When does the clock start ticking on notice periods?
- 🧾 How do you prove cost or delay if it’s caused by interpretation or policy circulars, not formal acts?
🔍 B. Clarifications with Real-World Examples
🟢 Example 1 – Indian GST Rule Change (Cost Impact)
A new GST circular reclassifies a supply used in construction from 12% to 18% overnight.
- Under 1999: You’d rely on “judicial or official governmental interpretation” — ✅ allowed, but timing is vague.
- Under 2017: You must issue notice in 28 days under Sub-Clause 20.2 — or your claim could be barred.
🎯 Clarity Tip: Define what constitutes “official governmental interpretation” and provide examples like tax circulars, tribunal rulings, or ministerial notifications.
🟡 Example 2 – Environmental Clearance Now Mandatory (Time Impact)
A new state regulation requires an Environmental Clearance for foundation excavation in forest zones.
- This could delay work by 90 days — but 1999 doesn’t even mention EOT in 13.7.
- 2017 covers both EOT and Cost — ✅ but only if timelines are met.
🎯 Clarity Tip: In Particular Conditions, include a non-exhaustive list of approvals that would trigger the clause — e.g., MoEF, Pollution Control Board, etc.
✍️ C. Suggested Modified Wording (Compliant with FIDIC Golden Principles)
Here’s a proposed redraft of Sub-Clause 13.6 (2017), ideal for Indian infrastructure contracts:
📄 Suggested Particular Conditions Text – Clause 13.6 (2017)
Sub-Clause 13.6 – Adjustments for Changes in Laws [Modified]
The Contract Price and/or the Time for Completion shall be adjusted to reflect any increase or decrease in Cost and/or time impact resulting from:
a. Any legislative change, statutory instrument, decree, judicial pronouncement, circular, notification, or interpretation thereof; b. Any change in the requirements for or the issuance of permits, approvals, clearances or consents by statutory bodies including but not limited to:
- Central or State Pollution Control Boards,
- MoEF&CC (Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change),
- GST Council and Tax Authorities,
- Labour Commissionerate,
- Regional Development Authorities;
provided that such change:
- is made or officially published after the Base Date;
- was not reasonably foreseeable by the Contractor;
- has a demonstrable impact on the Contractor’s cost or schedule.
The Contractor shall, within 28 days of becoming aware of such change, give Notice to the Engineer. Full particulars shall be submitted within 84 days, in line with Sub-Clause 20.2.
Failure to meet these timelines shall result in loss of entitlement, unless the Engineer determines that the Contractor was prevented from compliance due to justifiable causes.
The Engineer shall, after consultation, agree or determine adjustments under Sub-Clause 3.7.
📌 Explanation of the Changes
| Modified Element | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Expanded scope of “change in laws” | Prevents arguments over whether tax circulars or policy notes qualify |
| Clear inclusion of permit/approval regimes | Vital for India, where regulatory approvals often delay work |
| Examples of authorities | Makes the clause tangible — especially for EPC & public works |
| “Not reasonably foreseeable” test | Adds fairness filter to limit spurious claims |
| Defined timelines for compliance | Reinforces procedural discipline under Sub-Clause 20.2 |
🧱 D. Compliance with the FIDIC Golden Principles
The Golden Principles (GPs) allow for amendments to General Conditions when they clarify intent or ensure compliance with mandatory laws.
As per GP2:
“The Particular Conditions should clarify and fill out the General Conditions, not contradict or distort them.”1. FIDIC Yellow Book 20…
✅ The above modifications:
- Preserve the intent of Sub-Clause 13.6,
- Do not alter rights or responsibilities arbitrarily,
- And make the Contract more enforceable in a specific legal jurisdiction (e.g., India).
🎯 Final Takeaways for Clause Optimization
✅ If You’re an Employer: Clarify exactly what “change in law” means. Use examples and specify exclusions (e.g., minor local levies under ₹10,000/month may not be claimable).
✅ If You’re a Contractor: Maintain a Change-in-Law Logbook, and immediately flag new regulations with potential cost/time impact — even before full details are known.
✅ If You’re Drafting Particular Conditions:
Link timelines to Sub-Clause 20.2 but allow extensions in case of regulatory ambiguity.
Use defined terms like “Published Regulation” or “Designated Authority”.
7️⃣🧭 What Happens After the Contractor Issues Notice under Sub-Clause 13.6?
You’re absolutely right to ask:
“Does giving notice mean the Engineer immediately decides the outcome, or is there a structured path?”
The answer is: 🚦 It’s a multi-stage process — and the Engineer’s determination happens after both notice and submission of particulars.
Let’s break it down.
🔄 Full Step-by-Step Flow (FIDIC 2017 – Clauses 13.6 + 20.2 + 3.7)
🟨 Step 1: Triggering Event
- A change in Laws occurs that affects the Contractor’s cost and/or time.
- It must happen after the Base Date.
🟧 Step 2: Notice (Sub-Clause 20.2.1)
The Contractor must give Notice within 28 days of becoming aware of the change.
- This is not the claim itself, just a signal that a claim may come.
- If this notice is not given, the Contractor loses entitlement, unless there’s a valid reason accepted by the Engineer.
🟦 Step 3: Submission of Fully Detailed Claim (Sub-Clause 20.2.4)
Within 84 days of the event (or becoming aware of its consequences), the Contractor must submit:
- A statement of facts,
- Supporting documents (e.g., new law, memo, cost breakdown),
- Extension of Time request (if applicable),
- Legal and contractual basis for the claim.
🛠️ Note: At this point, Sub-Clause 13.6 is only one part of the basis — the claim is now processed under the full structure of Clause 20.2.
🟩 Step 4: Engineer’s Agreement or Determination (Sub-Clause 3.7)
After receiving the fully detailed claim, the Engineer must:
- Attempt agreement between parties (3.7.1),
- If no agreement, then issue a determination within 42 days (or other agreed time) under 3.7.2,
- The Engineer must be neutral and base their decision on the contract and facts.
📌 So, to answer your doubt clearly:
✅ The Engineer’s determination IS required.
Giving notice doesn’t skip this — it only starts the process.
💡 Visual Snapshot of the Sequence
CHANGE IN LAW OCCURS ➡️ Contractor Notices (28 days) ➡️
Submits Full Particulars (84 days) ➡️
Engineer Reviews ➡️
🤝 Agreement Attempt OR 🧑⚖️ Determination ➡️
(Dispute? → Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board under Clause 21)
🔄 Important Cross-Linkage in 13.6 Itself:
“The Engineer shall proceed under Sub-Clause 3.7 [Agreement or Determination] to agree or determine these matters.”
✅ So yes — Sub-Clause 13.6 directly instructs the Engineer to engage after the full claim is received.
8️⃣🧠 Final Summary:
| Stage | What Happens? | Is Engineer Involved? |
|---|---|---|
| Notice | Contractor gives early warning | ✅ Aware, but no decision yet |
| Full Particulars | Contractor submits detailed claim | ✅ Yes, triggers action |
| Agreement or Determination | Engineer must act per Sub-Clause 3.7 | ✅ Yes, critical role |
Final Takeaways
| ✅ Topic | 📘 1999 – 13.7 | 📕 2017 – 13.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Law Protection | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes |
| Covers Time Impact | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
| Notice/Details Timelines | ❌ None | ✅ 28/84 Days |
| Legal Scope | Narrower | Broader (incl. treaties, int’l law) |
| Tied to Claims Procedure | Implicit | Explicit |
| Clarity & Structure | Medium | High |
🧠 Final Thought:
FIDIC 2017 Sub-Clause 13.6 reflects a more modern, legally robust, and structured approach. It offers:
- ✅ Better risk allocation
- ✅ Stronger procedural discipline
- ✅ Wider protection for Contractors (if deadlines are met)
But it also requires Contractors to be more vigilant and organized in contract administration. Missing a deadline could mean losing entitlement—even for a legitimate cost.
📋 FIDIC 2017 – Sub-Clause 13.6 Compliance Checklist
| Step | Responsibility | Action Item | Done ✅ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1️⃣ | Contractor | Monitor for any change in laws, regulations, judicial interpretations, circulars, or government notifications after the Base Date. | ⬜ |
| 2️⃣ | Contractor | Assess whether the legal change will cause additional cost and/or delay in performance of contractual obligations. | ⬜ |
| 3️⃣ | Contractor | Within 28 days of becoming aware, submit a Notice under Sub-Clause 20.2.1 to the Engineer. | ⬜ |
| 4️⃣ | Contractor | Maintain a record of the date of awareness of the legal change for documentation and timeline control. | ⬜ |
| 5️⃣ | Contractor | Submit a Fully Detailed Claim under 20.2.4 within 84 days of the event or awareness, including: – Copy of the legal change – Cost impact breakdown – EOT request (if applicable) – Legal/contractual basis (reference to Sub-Clause 13.6) | ⬜ |
| 6️⃣ | Contractor | If the legal change has continuing effects (e.g., ongoing tax changes), submit Monthly Interim Claims as per Sub-Clause 20.2.6. | ⬜ |
| 7️⃣ | Engineer | Upon receipt of the full claim, initiate consultation for agreement between Contractor and Employer under Sub-Clause 3.7.1. | ⬜ |
| 8️⃣ | Engineer | If no agreement is reached, issue a formal determination within 42 days under Sub-Clause 3.7.2. | ⬜ |
| 9️⃣ | Contractor & Engineer | Ensure all correspondence, documents, and determinations are logged and filed properly to support any future DAAB or arbitration reference. | ⬜ |
| 🔟 | Employer | Acknowledge and act upon the Engineer’s determination promptly, including issuing Variation or payment adjustment if required. | ⬜ |
✅ Bonus: Suggested Project Management Tip
📂 Maintain a dedicated “Change in Law Tracker” as part of your project document control system. Include a column for:
- Date of publication,
- Source of law/circular,
- Initial assessment (impact/no impact),
- Notification date,
- Claim ID/reference.
📬 SAMPLE LETTERS UNDER SUB-CLAUSE 13.6 (FIDIC 2017)
📄 Letter 1: Initial Notice of Claim (within 28 days)
📌 Scenario: Introduction of a new GST surcharge on imported construction goods.
Subject: Notice under Sub-Clause 20.2.1 – Change in Laws (GST Surcharge Introduction)
To: The Engineer
Date: [Insert Date]
Contract: [Project Name and Contract Number]
Dear [Engineer’s Name],
In accordance with Sub-Clause 20.2.1 and Sub-Clause 13.6 of the Conditions of Contract, we hereby give notice of a change in Laws which we believe will have a material impact on our performance of the Works.
On [Date of Awareness], we became aware of a notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), which introduces a 5% surcharge on imported construction materials classified under HSN Code XXXX. The notification is effective from [Effective Date] and applies to materials critical to our ongoing procurement activities under the Contract.
We consider that this change in law constitutes grounds for a claim for adjustment to the Contract Price under Sub-Clause 13.6.
We shall submit full particulars of the claim within 84 days as per Sub-Clause 20.2.4.
Yours faithfully,
[Authorized Signatory]
[Contractor’s Company Name]
📄 Letter 2: Submission of Fully Detailed Claim (within 84 days)
📌 Scenario: Delay due to new requirement for Environmental Clearance.
Subject: Submission of Full Particulars – Claim under Sub-Clause 13.6 (Delay due to Environmental Clearance Regulation)
Dear [Engineer’s Name],
Following our notice dated [Notice Date] regarding the introduction of a new regulation under the [State/Environmental Act], we hereby submit the fully detailed claim under Sub-Clause 20.2.4.
The regulation issued by [Authority] on [Date] mandates an Environmental Clearance (EC) process for excavation works near designated forest zones. As our site lies within 1.2 km of such a zone, the new requirement has delayed our access to excavation and piling activities.
We request:
- An extension of [Number of Days] to the Time for Completion,
- Additional Cost amounting to [INR/USD Amount], including costs for consultants, application fees, and idle equipment.
Please find enclosed:
- Copy of Government Notification
- Revised Programme indicating delay
- Cost breakdown with supporting invoices
- Legal analysis referencing Sub-Clause 13.6 and 20.2
We request you to proceed under Sub-Clause 3.7 for agreement or determination.
Yours faithfully,
[Authorized Signatory]
[Contractor’s Company Name]
📄 Letter 3: Monthly Interim Claim (for continuing cost impact)
📌 Scenario: Ongoing monthly cost due to compliance with revised safety regulations.
Subject: Interim Monthly Claim – Continuing Effects of Change in Law (New Safety Inspection Regime)
Dear [Engineer’s Name],
As per Sub-Clause 20.2.6, we submit our monthly interim claim regarding continuing impacts from the implementation of the [National Construction Safety Rules 2024] enforced from [Date].
The regulation mandates third-party safety inspections and weekly reporting, incurring additional costs of [Amount] per month since [Start Month].
Please find enclosed:
- Consultant invoices,
- Monthly safety logs,
- Attendance and deployment records,
- Cumulative summary of prior claims under this head.
We will continue submitting interim claims monthly until the cost impact ceases.
Yours faithfully,
[Authorized Signatory]
[Contractor’s Company Name]
📄 Letter 4: Engineer’s Response (Request for Clarification / Acknowledgement)
📌 Scenario: Engineer acknowledges the claim but seeks further clarification.
Subject: Acknowledgement of Claim under Sub-Clause 13.6 – Request for Further Details
Dear [Contractor’s Name],
We acknowledge receipt of your notice dated [Insert Date] and your claim submission dated [Insert Date], concerning the change in law regarding [brief reference].
Before proceeding with the determination under Sub-Clause 3.7, we request the following additional information:
- Clarification on how the cost impact was calculated,
- Revised resource histogram reflecting the delay impact,
- Comparison of pre- and post-change legal positions.
Please submit the requested information within [X days] to avoid delay in the determination process.
Yours faithfully,
[Engineer’s Representative Name]
[Consulting Engineer Firm]
📄 Letter 5: Engineer’s Determination (Final Outcome)
📌 Scenario: Engineer completes review and issues determination.
Subject: Engineer’s Determination under Sub-Clause 3.7 – Claim under Sub-Clause 13.6
Dear [Contractor’s Name],
We refer to your notice dated [Insert Date] and full particulars dated [Insert Date], regarding the change in laws affecting [short summary].
Pursuant to our consultation and review under Sub-Clause 3.7, we hereby determine that:
- The Contractor is entitled to an extension of [X days] to the Time for Completion.
- The Contractor is entitled to a payment of [Amount], to be certified in the next IPC.
This determination is made without prejudice to either Party’s right to refer the matter to the DAAB under Clause 21.
Yours faithfully,
[Engineer’s Name]
[Engineer’s Firm]