Views in the last 30 days: 73
Estimated read time: 20 minute(s)
🔍
Quick Orientation
Clause 4.7 of the Yellow Book tells the Contractor:
“Set-out the Works correctly, spot any errors in the Employer’s reference data, 📐 and fix or price the consequences.”
“Set-out the Works correctly, spot any errors in the Employer’s reference data, 📐 and fix or price the consequences.”
What follows: A head-to-head of 1999 📘 vs 2017 📒 — with key interpretations, real-world “what-ifs,” and essential cross-references!
1️⃣
Purpose of Clause 4.7 — Edition Showdown
🤔
Why it matters
Accurate setting-out underpins every downstream activity; mishaps ripple into design clashes, re-work, and programme claims.
Clause 4.7 balances “you set it out” with “I’ll pay if my data misled you”.
Clause 4.7 balances “you set it out” with “I’ll pay if my data misled you”.
🔎
What-if Scenarios
What if the reference data is wrong?
The Contractor can claim extra time/cost if they spot and notify errors promptly (see the 28-day notice window in 2017).
See also: Clause 1.9: Employer’s Requirements
See also: Clause 1.9: Employer’s Requirements
What if I miss the notice period?
Missing the window may mean you lose entitlement. The 2017 edition is strict here: timelines matter!
More on notice procedures: Clause 1.3: Notices & Communications
More on notice procedures: Clause 1.3: Notices & Communications
What links to downstream claims?
Setting-out errors can trigger claims under
Clause 20 (Claims, Disputes & Arbitration) and
Clause 8.7 (Liquidated Damages).
Related Clauses:
📐
Breakdown of Clause 4.7 – “Setting Out”
Now with extra detail & a dash of personality 🎨
Big picture: Both Books say, “Contractor, you hold the tape measure.”
But they part company on how you prove you did it right and when you can cry foul if the Employer’s coordinates were off.
But they part company on how you prove you did it right and when you can cry foul if the Employer’s coordinates were off.
📘
1999 Edition – the classic single-paragraph powerhouse
What the clause actually says → Why it matters
| “The Contractor shall set out the Works in relation to original points, lines and levels of reference specified in the Contract or notified by the Engineer.” | You take the Employer’s benchmarks and create the life-size grid on site. |
| “The Contractor shall be responsible for the correct positioning of all parts of the Works, and shall rectify any error…” | If your crew mis-reads the drawings, you foot the bill—no excuses. |
| “The Employer shall be responsible for any errors in these…items of reference, but the Contractor shall use reasonable efforts to verify their accuracy before they are used.” | Hidden typo in the coordinate schedule? Employer risk. But you must still do a sanity check (walk, don’t run). |
| Relief route: if you’re delayed or out-of-pocket and “an experienced contractor could not reasonably have discovered such error,” give notice under Clause 20.1 and you may collect EOT + Cost + profit. |
The test is double-barrelled: unforeseeable and undiscoverable. Miss either and the cash stays in the Employer’s pocket.
See more: Clause 20 – Claims & Disputes |
Conversational take:
Picture yourself on day one with a GPS rover. You ping the control points the Employer gave you and one is mysteriously 150 mm off. You flag it, the Engineer nods, and the Employer eats the re-set cost. If you don’t flag it and pour concrete, you’re ordering a very expensive “oops” on your own tab.
Picture yourself on day one with a GPS rover. You ping the control points the Employer gave you and one is mysteriously 150 mm off. You flag it, the Engineer nods, and the Employer eats the re-set cost. If you don’t flag it and pour concrete, you’re ordering a very expensive “oops” on your own tab.
📒
2017 Edition – same melody, richer orchestration
FIDIC sliced the 1999 text into 4.7.1–4.7.3, layered in time-bars, and plugged it into the new
3.7 Agreement/Determination engine.
4.7 (lead-in): Datums & Cross-Links
“The Contractor shall set out the Works in relation to the items of reference under 2.5 Site Data and Items of Reference.”
Translation: your datum pool is now explicitly cross-linked to Clause 4.10 (Site Data) and Clause 2.5, tightening the chain of custody for survey data.
Translation: your datum pool is now explicitly cross-linked to Clause 4.10 (Site Data) and Clause 2.5, tightening the chain of custody for survey data.
4.7.1 Accuracy – the “pre-flight checklist”
- Verify every benchmark before you use it.
- Report the results promptly to the Engineer (instant paper-trail).
- Rectify your own layout goofs—no claim ticket.
- Remain responsible for hitting the correct position, level, dimension, and alignment.
Tip: Fail any step and the crash investigation starts with you.
4.7.2 Errors – the notice highway
| Data origin | Notice clock | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| 📑 Items in Employer’s Requirements | 28 days from Commencement | Encourages early deep-dive survey while mobilisation is cheap. |
| 📨 Items issued by Engineer later | “As soon as practicable” | Keeps the project agile—fresh data, fresh responsibility. |
More on notices: Clause 1.3
4.7.3 Agreement/Determination – mini-arbitration
- Engineer must rule: Is there really an error? Should a prudent contractor have found it? What’s the fix and who pays?
- If error is “undiscoverable,” fix is usually a Variation (13.3.1).
- No physical fix? You still get EOT and Cost + profit for ripple effects, via Clause 20.
🚦 Side-by-side quick hits
1999
- Time-bar: Implicit “reasonable time”
- Notice = just the fact of delay/cost
- Determination: 3.5
- Variation: Engineer decides ad-hoc
2017
- Time-bar: Express 28 days (or Contract Data)
- Notice = Factual error + evidence (triggers 3.7)
- Determination: 3.7 (deadlines, deemed outcomes)
- Variation: Hard-wired to 13.3.1 once error confirmed
💡 How to remember it
1999 = One paragraph, contractor shouts when lost.
2017 = Three-step dance: Check → Notice → Engineer rules.
2017 = Three-step dance: Check → Notice → Engineer rules.
Mnemonic: “4-7-1 verify, 4-7-2 notify, 4-7-3 ratify.”
🎯 Contractor pro-tips (click to expand!)
- Front-load your survey budget. A laser scan in week 1 costs peanuts next to stitching a steel frame back in place.
- Log every verification in the CDE (common data environment) and copy the Engineer—creates the audit trail that 4.7.1 & 4.7.2 adore.
- Template your notice. A one-page “Setting-Out Error Notice” that ticks the clause boxes avoids fatal formatting fights.
- Sync with BIM coordinates. If BIM is part of the Employer’s Requirements, mismatched models can spark a 4.7 dispute—tie your model validation protocol to 4.7.1 scans.
Related Clauses:
🤓
Key Interpretations & Implications
Now with extra “Story Behind the Clause” detail 🎙️
Think of Clause 4.7 as the surveyor’s black box: crack it open and you’ll find risk allocation, claim choreography, and dispute-avoidance circuitry all whirring away. Let’s unpack each moving part and see why the 2017 rewrite matters in practice.
1️⃣ “Pre-Flight Check” vs. “Hope for the Best” ✈️
1999 vibe: Contractor must use “reasonable efforts” to verify Employer’s benchmarks – but it’s light-touch. In disputes, courts ask: Did a prudent contractor act sensibly?
See: Clause 20
2017 upgrade: 4.7.1(a)–(b) turns that check into formal QC: verify before use, hand results to Engineer. Skip it? Any layout mistake is on you.
Why it matters: Early verification shifts latent-error risk to the Employer only after you prove due diligence. It’s the difference between “We assumed it was right” and “Here’s our signed survey log from Day 3.”
See: Clause 20
2017 upgrade: 4.7.1(a)–(b) turns that check into formal QC: verify before use, hand results to Engineer. Skip it? Any layout mistake is on you.
Why it matters: Early verification shifts latent-error risk to the Employer only after you prove due diligence. It’s the difference between “We assumed it was right” and “Here’s our signed survey log from Day 3.”
2️⃣ The 28-Day Hourglass ⏳ – Notice or Lose
| Edition | Clock Starts | Consequence of Silence |
|---|---|---|
| 📘 1999 | “Reasonable time” (undefined) | Argument festers until arbitration |
| 📒 2017 | 28 days from Commencement (4.7.2(a)) “As soon as practicable” for late-issued data (4.7.2(b)) |
Miss it ⇒ Engineer may deem error discoverable → no EOT/no Cost (Clause 20) |
Conversational lens: Imagine finding a rogue coordinate on Day 45. Under 2017 rules you’re outside the 28-day window, so the Engineer can shrug: “A diligent contractor would’ve spotted that in week 1.” Your claim evaporates faster than a snapped chalk line.
3️⃣ The Engineer’s New “Neutrino” Role ⚖️
1999: 3.5 Determinations – no explicit deadlines; Engineer often seen as Employer’s mouthpiece.
2017: 3.7 Agreement/Determination demands neutrality, 42-day decision windows, and deemed determinations if the Engineer sleeps on the job.
2017: 3.7 Agreement/Determination demands neutrality, 42-day decision windows, and deemed determinations if the Engineer sleeps on the job.
Implication: Parties know exactly when a survey-error dispute ripens into a Dispute for the DAAB. Certainty = fewer ambush tactics.
4️⃣ Variation Trigger Happy 🎯
When the Engineer confirms an undiscoverable error: 4.7.3(i) fires – fixes become a
Variation (13.3.1).
Pricing: Variation procedure applies; if no physical work is needed, claim Cost + Profit/EOT via Clause 20.2.
Pricing: Variation procedure applies; if no physical work is needed, claim Cost + Profit/EOT via Clause 20.2.
Take-home nugget: Never rectify a reference-point error on goodwill alone. Secure the Variation instruction in writing first – your commercial team will toast you later. 🥂
5️⃣ The “Foreseeability” Litmus Test 🧐
Both editions: Employer only pays for non-obvious errors.
Test: Would a diligent contractor have spotted the glitch?
2017: Codifies this in 4.7.3(b): two checkpoints (tender & design-scrutiny).
Test: Would a diligent contractor have spotted the glitch?
2017: Codifies this in 4.7.3(b): two checkpoints (tender & design-scrutiny).
Strategic tip: Maintain a tidy “Site Data Review Register.” Show you opened every topo file, cross-checked GIS layers, and queried anomalies. Evidence kills the “you should have seen it” rebuttal.
6️⃣ Digital Coordinates, BIM & Clause 2.5 🛰️
The 2017 Book hooks 4.7 into Clause 2.5/4.10 Site Data.
Why it’s huge: Items of Reference might live in a federated BIM model. A corrupted coordinate system propagates through every drawing – the perfect hidden error.
Early model validation = 4.7.1 compliance. Fluff it, and your laser-scan subcontractor’s invoice may be on you.
Why it’s huge: Items of Reference might live in a federated BIM model. A corrupted coordinate system propagates through every drawing – the perfect hidden error.
Early model validation = 4.7.1 compliance. Fluff it, and your laser-scan subcontractor’s invoice may be on you.
7️⃣ Risk Matrix – Who Pays When? 💸
| Scenario | Contractor Pays | Employer Pays |
|---|---|---|
| Mis-read drawing/sloppy total-station work | ✅ | ❌ |
| Employer GPS typo flagged in time | ❌ | ✅ (Variation + EOT) |
| Same typo, notice after 28 days (2017) | ✅ (deemed discoverable) | ❌ |
| No physical fix, but delay to redesign | Cost + Profit via 20.2 claim | ✅ if undiscoverable |
8️⃣ Practical Playbook 🔧
- Day 0–14: Run a full control-point survey; issue a slick verification report to the Engineer.
- Template the 4.7 Notice: Fill-in blanks for data origin, impact sketch, and proposed mitigation.
- Log Engineer response times: Missed 42-day window? You now have a deemed rejection—head to the DAAB.
- Sync with Design Leads: BIM coordinators must tag coordinate revisions as potential 4.7.2(b) errors—keep the claims battery charged.
🎤 Final Sound-Bite
Clause 4.7 isn’t about holding a tape measure; it’s about holding the clock and the purse strings.
Nail the verification, respect the 28-day fuse, and let the Engineer’s stopwatch—and FIDIC’s built-in fairness mechanisms—do the heavy lifting when data goes bad.
Armed with these deeper insights, you can stride onto site knowing exactly when a skewed benchmark becomes the Employer’s headache—and when it stubbornly remains yours. Happy surveying! 🧭
Clause 4.7 isn’t about holding a tape measure; it’s about holding the clock and the purse strings.
Nail the verification, respect the 28-day fuse, and let the Engineer’s stopwatch—and FIDIC’s built-in fairness mechanisms—do the heavy lifting when data goes bad.
Armed with these deeper insights, you can stride onto site knowing exactly when a skewed benchmark becomes the Employer’s headache—and when it stubbornly remains yours. Happy surveying! 🧭
Related Clauses:
🧭
Cross-References that Really Matter
Your GPS for navigating Clause 4.7 ✨
When a single benchmark peg is off-line, half the contract can light up. Here’s the “circuit diagram” of clauses that start sparking the moment 4.7 is triggered—and why they belong in the same conversation.
🔗 2.5 Site Data & Items of Reference
Think of 2.5 as the source code for every coordinate, grid line and BIM model you inherit.
4.7 expressly tells you to build your setting-out grid “in relation to the items of reference under Sub-Clause 2.5” — so an error in those items can boomerang back to the Employer.
Pro tip: Treat your 2.5 hand-over meeting like you’re accepting a new car—kick the tyres early.
Read on: Site Data
4.7 expressly tells you to build your setting-out grid “in relation to the items of reference under Sub-Clause 2.5” — so an error in those items can boomerang back to the Employer.
Pro tip: Treat your 2.5 hand-over meeting like you’re accepting a new car—kick the tyres early.
🔗 1.9 Errors in the Employer’s Requirements
If 2.5 supplies the numbers, 1.9 supplies the logic. Both Books say: “Spot a design glitch? Tell the Engineer fast.”
2017 gives you a 42-day hard bar to raise design-data errors; miss it and the Employer can argue you should have found it.
Pair 1.9 with 4.7 and you’ve covered geometry and design intent—belt and braces!
Explore: Clause 1.9
2017 gives you a 42-day hard bar to raise design-data errors; miss it and the Employer can argue you should have found it.
Pair 1.9 with 4.7 and you’ve covered geometry and design intent—belt and braces!
🔗 3.7 Agreement/Determination
Once your 4.7.2 notice hits the Engineer, the stopwatch in 3.7 (or 3.5 for 1999) starts. Engineer has 42 days to agree or issue a neutral determination. Silence? Deemed rejection, and DAAB door swings open 🛎️.
Dive into 3.7
🔗 13.3.1 Variation by Instruction
Confirmed “undiscoverable” error? 4.7.3(i) hot-wires directly into 13.3.1: rectification = Variation. Without that Variation, you’re doing charity work—don’t lift a shovel until the paperwork lands!
See Variation Steps
🔗 20 Claims
Whether it’s extra piling or two weeks of rework, money and time flow through 20. 2017’s 20.2 claim steps dovetail neatly with the 28-day fuse in 4.7.2. In 1999, 20.1 notice plus 8.4 EOT does the same job.
Full Claims Guide
🔗 4.12 Unforeseeable Physical Conditions
Mis-plotted benchmarks + hidden ground nasties = double trouble. 4.12 handles subsurface surprises; 4.7 handles map-reading blunders. Use both for time and Variation!
Unpack 4.12
🔗 8.5 / 8.4 Extension of Time
Any delay the Engineer signs off under 4.7 adjusts the contract finish line here. 2017’s text cross-refers adverse conditions & concurrency rules—keep an eye if your survey rework overlaps bad weather!
Time for Completion
🔗 17 Risk & Responsibility + 1.15 Limitation of Liability
A wild coordinate can force heavy re-work and nudge third-party property/utilities. 17.1–17.4 assign who pays; 1.15 caps the Contractor’s wallet for knock-on indirect losses. Sanity-check your insurance right after a 4.7 event!
Risk & Indemnities
🗺️ How to Use This Map
- Notice early, quote often. Your first email should name-drop 4.7, 2.5, 1.9, and 3.7—flags geometry & design risk and locks in Engineer’s deadline.
- Bundle claims smartly. If the same survey bust delays both piling and design, split the impact: Variation under 13, EOT under 8/20.
- Watch the dominoes. A missed 4.7 time-bar can nuke your 8.5 EOT and 20 money claim—track every linked clause in one matrix.
Memory hook: “Wrong peg? Check 2.5; spot error in 1.9; notify via 3.7; vary with 13; claim through 20.” 🧩
Armed with this cross-reference compass, you’ll never get lost in the thicket of FIDIC obligations when a benchmark hiccups again. Happy navigating! 🚀
🏗️💡
What-If Scenarios
See how Clause 4.7 actually works in the wild—with real, site-based twists!
🔬
Suggestions for Clarity & Improvement
Dialing the contracts-nerd microscope up to 11 🔬
Slip these tweaks into the Particular Conditions (PCs) or Employer’s Requirements to avoid “we-thought-it-meant-this” showdowns once the rebar’s in the slab.
🛠️ 1. Nail the When – hard-edged notice & verification clocks
Why it helps 👉 Hard numbers stop the blame game before it starts.
📋 2. Standardise the 4.7 Notice – one page, zero drama
- Data origin (Employer’s Requirements vs. Engineer-issued).
- Error description (coordinate, benchmark, BIM grid, etc.).
- Proposed mitigation & programme hit (hours, EOT).
- Attachments (survey sketch, screenshot, point-cloud snippet).
🛰️ 3. Embrace Digital Setting-Out – pegs are so 1990s
Context: 4.7 points to 2.5 Site Data & Items of Reference, but never says what format that data lives in.
PC addition:
PC addition:
All digital items of reference (e.g. BIM coordinates, GIS shapefiles) shall be delivered in IFC and CSV format and shall be validated against ISO 19650 before the Commencement Date. Any model coordinate update issued after that date is deemed a new item of reference under Sub-Clause 4.7.2(b).Pay-off: Keeps 3D modelers, surveyors and claims managers on the same page.
🎯 4. Define Accuracy Tolerances up-front
Issue: Neither edition spells out how “accurate” is accurate.
Fix: Add a table in the Employer’s Requirements:
When the tolerance is in black-and-white, the survey report either passes or fails—no grey zone.
Fix: Add a table in the Employer’s Requirements:
| Element | Positional tolerance (mm) | Level tolerance (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Anchor bolts | ±5 | ±3 |
| Steel columns > 15 m tall | ±10 | ±6 |
| Pipe rack centreline | ±20 | n/a |
🧑💻 5. Hook 4.7 into the Quality & BIM ecosystem
Quality: Cross-reference 4.9.1 Quality Management System for survey records and geo-referenced photos.
BIM: Require “clash-free” and “coordinate-verified” models as part of the 5.2 Contractor’s Documents review cycle.
Result: Setting-out becomes a fully auditable QA line item.
BIM: Require “clash-free” and “coordinate-verified” models as part of the 5.2 Contractor’s Documents review cycle.
Result: Setting-out becomes a fully auditable QA line item.
🛡️ 6. Guard the Contractor’s downside – caps & concurrent delay rules
Cap it: Tie any re-setting delay damages to the 1.15 Limitation of Liability ceiling.
Concurrency: State that if a 4.7 error overlaps an independent Contractor delay, EOT shall be apportioned by the Engineer under 3.7 (mirrors SCL Protocol best practice).
Concurrency: State that if a 4.7 error overlaps an independent Contractor delay, EOT shall be apportioned by the Engineer under 3.7 (mirrors SCL Protocol best practice).
✍️ 7. Pre-authorise the Variation pathway
PC addition:
If the Engineer fails to issue a Variation instruction within 7 days of agreeing or determining measures under 4.7.3, the Contractor may treat the Notice as the Engineer’s instruction under Sub-Clause 13.3.1.Outcome: You’re never left doing unpaid remedial works.
🦺 8. Mesh with Health & Safety routines
Link: 4.8 Health and Safety Obligations
Addendum: “All re-setting operations in live areas shall trigger a ‘red-zone’ permit and a revised lifting plan.”
Why: Survey fix-ups after other trades mobilise = extra danger, extra paperwork.
Addendum: “All re-setting operations in live areas shall trigger a ‘red-zone’ permit and a revised lifting plan.”
Why: Survey fix-ups after other trades mobilise = extra danger, extra paperwork.
🌐 9. Quick-fire wording edits (copy/paste-ready)
📝
Clause 4.7 – Practical Checklists
Use (or adapt) these ready-made lists to keep your Setting-Out obligations watertight. Tick them off as you go!
1️⃣ Pre-Commencement “Data Handover” Checklist
| # | Action | Who Leads | Clause / PC Hook | Target Date | ✅ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Collect all 2.5 Site Data & Items of Reference (benchmarks, BIM files, shapefiles) | Employer / Engineer | 2.5, 4.7 | Before Commencement Date | |
| 2 | Confirm file formats (IFC, CSV, DWG) & coordinate system | Contractor BIM Lead | PC §Digital Setting-Out | C-3 days | |
| 3 | Jointly walk physical benchmarks; log GPS coordinates | Surveyor + Engineer | 4.7.1(a) | C-2 days | |
| 4 | Issue signed “Data Handover Certificate” | Engineer | PC Appendix A-3 | C-1 day |
2️⃣ Verification & QC Checklist (Day 0-14)
| # | Task | Who Signs Off | Evidence Needed | Clause Hook | ✅ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Perform full control-point survey (total station / laser scan) | Contractor Survey Head | Survey Report VER-04 | 4.7.1(a) | |
| 2 | Compare results against Employer benchmarks | Contractor QA | Deviation Table | 4.7.1(b) | |
| 3 | Upload survey files to Common Data Environment (CDE) | BIM Manager | CDE Log ID | 4.7.1(b) | |
| 4 | Submit verification results to Engineer within 3 days | Contractor PM | Transmittal No. | PC clock tweak | |
| 5 | Receive Engineer’s acceptance or comments | Engineer | Signed Memo | 3.7 |
3️⃣ Error Notice “Fuse” Checklist
| # | Trigger | Max Notice Period | Notice Content | Reference | ✅ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Error in Employer’s Requirements (pre-issued) | 28 days (or PC-reduced) from Commencement | • Ref origin • Error sketch • Preliminary impact |
4.7.2(a) | |
| 2 | Error in later Engineer-issued data | 14 days (PC example) from receipt | Same as above | 4.7.2(b) | |
| 3 | Log notice in Claims Register | Contracts Admin | 20.2.1 | ||
| 4 | Attach supporting survey, photos, point cloud | Surveyor | 4.7.2 |
4️⃣ Rectification & Variation Checklist
| # | Action | Responsible | Supporting Doc | Clause | ✅ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Engineer agrees error & issues Determination within 42 days | Engineer | Form DET-17 | 3.7 / 4.7.3 | |
| 2 | Engineer instructs Variation (or deemed instruction after 7 days silence) | Engineer / Contractor | VO-Instruction | 13.3.1 + PC auto-issue | |
| 3 | Update programme & seek provisional EOT | Planner | Rev P6 file | 8.5 / 20.2 | |
| 4 | Implement rectification works with safety permits | Site Manager | Permit-to-Work | 4.8 | |
| 5 | Record extra Cost & resources daily | QS | Daily Cost Sheets | 20.2.3 |
5️⃣ Claim Close-Out Checklist
| # | Step | Owner | Deliverable | Clause | ✅ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Submit Fully Detailed Claim (delay & Cost) within 84 days | Contractor PM | Claim Dossier CL-07 | 20.2.4 | |
| 2 | Engineer’s response within 42 days | Engineer | Determination Letter | 3.7 | |
| 3 | Update final records in CDE & QA files | Document Control | Archive refs | ISO 19650 / QA Plan | |
| 4 | Reflect outcome in Risk Register & Lessons Learned | Project Director | LL Report | Best Practice |
6️⃣ Risk, Insurance & Safety Checklist
| # | Item | Responsible | Checkpoint | Clause / Policy | ✅ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Confirm Professional Indemnity covers setting-out | Commercial Manager | Policy No. | 17.3 | |
| 2 | Verify liability cap aligns with PC wording | Legal | Contract Data | 1.15 | |
| 3 | Issue revised lifting / exclusion-zone plan for re-setting | HSE Lead | Plan LZ-02 | 4.8 |
Pro-tip: Save these tables as live sheets in your project CDE so the whole team can tick boxes in real time—no more scrambling for who-did-what when a benchmark goes rogue.
Happy ticking! ✔️
Happy ticking! ✔️
✉️
Sample Letters for Setting-Out Flashpoints
Six ready-to-copy templates for the most common Clause 4.7 “moments.” Paste onto your letterhead and fill the brackets!
1️⃣ Verification Report (Sub-Clause 4.7.1) – “Here’s the proof we checked your benchmarks.”
[Your Company Letterhead]
Date: [DD MMM YYYY]
Our Ref: [###]
To: The Engineer, [Consultant Name]
Project: [Project Title]
Contract: FIDIC Yellow Book 20[17] / [1999]
Subject: Submission of Setting-Out Verification Results – Sub-Clause 4.7.1
Dear [Engineer’s Name],
In accordance with Sub-Clause 4.7.1 (a)–(b) of the Conditions of Contract, we have completed the independent survey of all items of reference listed under Sub-Clause 2.5.
Kindly find attached:
* Survey Report VER-04 (control-point coordinates & deviation table)
* Annotated site sketch and point-cloud snapshots
* Calibration certificates for total-station/BIM model
We confirm no discrepancies exceeding the contractual tolerances were detected. Please acknowledge receipt at your earliest convenience.
Yours faithfully,
_______________________
[Contractor’s Representative]
Position: [ ]
(clause citation: 1. FIDIC Yellow Book 20…)
2️⃣ Notice of Error in Employer’s Requirements (4.7.2(a)) – Must be inside the 28-day fuse!
Subject: Notice of Error in Items of Reference – Sub-Clause 4.7.2 (a)
We hereby give Notice that an error has been discovered in benchmark B-12, which is specified in the Employer’s Requirements. The horizontal coordinate differs by +152 mm from the verified survey carried out on [date].
Pursuant to Sub-Clause 4.7.2 (a) (notice within 28 days of the Commencement Date) we request that the Engineer proceed in accordance with Sub-Clause 3.7 to agree or determine:
a) Confirmation of the error;
b) Measures required to rectify it;
c) Entitlement to delay and Cost, including Cost Plus Profit.
A sketch and comparison table are enclosed.
Kindly acknowledge within seven (7) days.
Yours faithfully, […]
(clause citation: )
3️⃣ Notice of Error in Later-Issued Data (4.7.2(b)) – The “as soon as practicable” lane.
Subject: Notice of Error in Engineer-Issued Coordinates – Sub-Clause 4.7.2 (b)
Following receipt of revised grid file XYZ-REV02 on [dd mmm], we have identified a level discrepancy of –45 mm at grid intersection E-14/F-14.
In compliance with Sub-Clause 4.7.2 (b) we notify the Engineer immediately and request prompt confirmation.
Pending your response, we have isolated the affected area to avoid abortive works.
Attachments: comparison report & annotated IFC model.
Regards, […]
(clause citation: 1. FIDIC Yellow Book 20…)
4️⃣ Reminder / Request for Determination (Engineer late) – Use when 42 days have passed with no decision
Subject: Request for Engineer’s Determination – Sub-Clauses 4.7.3 & 3.7.3
Further to our Notice dated [dd mmm] regarding the error in benchmark B-12, no agreement has been reached and the 42-day period under Sub-Clause 3.7.3 has expired on [dd mmm].
In accordance with Sub-Clause 3.7.3, the matter is now deemed a Dispute. Unless a determination is issued within seven (7) days, we may refer the matter to the DAAB under Clause 21.
Please advise urgently.
Sincerely, […]
(clause citation: 1. FIDIC Yellow Book 20…)
5️⃣ Request for Variation Instruction (4.7.3(i) → 13.3.1) – You’ve got agreement, but no paperwork yet.
Subject: Request for Variation Instruction – Sub-Clauses 4.7.3(i) & 13.3.1
We refer to the Engineer’s determination dated [dd mmm] confirming the undiscoverable error in benchmark B-12 and instructing rectification measures.
Kindly issue a formal Variation Instruction under Sub-Clause 13.3.1 so that commercial evaluation can proceed. In the absence of such instruction within seven (7) days, we will treat this letter as the Engineer’s instruction in accordance with Particular Condition [PC-ref].
We remain ready to commence the works upon receipt.
Yours faithfully, […]
(clause citation: )
6️⃣ Fully Detailed Claim (20.2.4) for EOT & Cost – Follows the earlier Notice; covers all four parts
Subject: Fully Detailed Claim – Error in Items of Reference (Sub-Clauses 4.7.3 & 20.2.4)
Pursuant to the valid Notice of Claim dated [dd mmm] and within the 84-day limit of Sub-Clause 20.2.4, we submit our Fully Detailed Claim:
(a) **Event description** – Rectification of benchmark B-12 error confirmed by Engineer on [dd mmm].
(b) **Contractual basis** – Sub-Clauses 4.7.3 (ii), 13.3.1 and 8.5 (EOT) .
(c) **Contemporary records** – Daily site diaries, resource sheets, delay-analysis programme (Primavera P6 Rev 03).
(d) **Quantum & time** – Cost USD 137 450 (Cost Plus Profit) and EOT of 14 calendar days.
Please proceed under Sub-Clause 3.7 to agree or determine the Claim.
Kind regards, […]
(clause citation: )
✨ 1999 Edition Tweaks
If you’re on the 1999 Book, swap clause hooks as follows:
| 2017 Clause in letter | 1999 Equivalent |
|---|---|
| 4.7.2(a)/(b) | 4.7 (single para) + 20.1 notice |
| 3.7 | 3.5 Determinations |
| 13.3.1 Variation by Instruction | 13.3 Variation Procedure |
| 20.2.4 Fully Detailed Claim | 20.1 (42-day claim) |
Update the clause numbers and time-bars (e.g., 42 days instead of 84 days for the detailed claim).
Pro-tip: Store these templates in your Common Data Environment. A 30-second copy-paste can save a six-month arbitration.
Happy drafting! 📄🖋️
Happy drafting! 📄🖋️