FIDIC Clause 7.1: Manner of Execution Explained Clearly

🧱 So what is this clause really about?

Whether you’re laying concrete in Mumbai, installing HVAC ducting in Manchester, or setting up a turbine in Texas, Clause 7.1 ensures that the Contractor’s execution of the Works is done the right way.

Now, let’s break down that phrase—“done the right way.”
Clause 7.1 is essentially the Employer saying:

“I’m not just hiring you to build something—I’m hiring you to build it the way it’s supposed to be built: using proper techniques, by skilled people, with safe materials, in a way that won’t fall apart or fail an inspection six months later.”

🧩 Where does Clause 7.1 sit in the contract structure?

Think of Clause 7.1 as the bridge between:

• 📑 Contractual requirements (what the specs say you must do), and
• 🛠️ Practical execution (how you actually do it onsite).

It doesn’t operate in isolation—it’s woven into a bigger quality and compliance framework. For example:

• Clause 4.1 sets the contractor’s duty to complete the works and comply with the Contract.
• Clause 4.9 in 2017 introduces the Quality Management System (QMS), but Clause 7.1 is where those QMS standards meet physical execution.
• And Clause 7.5 (Rejection) is the flip side—if you mess up Clause 7.1, that’s where the consequences kick in.

So yeah, this clause isn’t just about “doing work”—it’s about doing contractually defensible, technically sound, and legally safe work.

🏗️ What kind of “execution” are we talking about?

Here’s where the 1999 and 2017 editions differ just a bit—but significantly.

📘 In 1999:

Clause 7.1 says the Contractor shall carry out the “manufacture of Plant, the production and manufacture of Materials, and all other execution of the Works…”

So it’s focused on physical construction activities. But it also emphasizes:

• Doing it in a proper, workmanlike, and careful manner
• Using recognized good practice
• Ensuring non-hazardous materials and properly equipped facilities

So far, so good. But then comes 📒 2017, which widens the scope.

📒 In 2017:

Now the Contractor must carry out the:

“manufacture, supply, installation, testing and commissioning and/or repair of Plant… and all other operations and activities during the execution of the Works…”

Whoa. See what they did there?

🆕 FIDIC 2017 recognizes that contractors today aren’t just builders anymore. They’re:

• Supplying equipment
• Installing and testing systems
• Commissioning plant
• Even repairing stuff during execution!

So the 2017 edition aligns more closely with modern, design-build-operate contract delivery. Clause 7.1 now reflects that full project lifecycle. This is especially important in infrastructure and EPC-style projects.

✅ For the Employer:

Clause 7.1 is a shield against shoddy work. It gives you a clear basis to:

• Demand compliance
• Reject substandard work under Clause 7.5
• Enforce proper rectification

It’s also a risk transfer tool: the Contractor takes on execution risk, not just design risk.

✅ For the Engineer:

Clause 7.1 gives the Engineer the authority to monitor, inspect, and enforce execution quality. It’s what supports decisions to approve, reject, or request rework.

✅ For the Contractor:

This clause is a guiding compass. It tells you how to structure your work processes and ensures you’re not held to vague or shifting standards—if you understand what “recognized good practice” means and apply it properly.

BUT—it also imposes significant responsibility:

• Use proper methods
• Follow specified procedures
• Don’t cheap out on materials or machinery
• Stay compliant with technical codes and safety regulations

🔍 First, Let’s Read the Actual Clauses (Side-by-Side)

📘 FIDIC Yellow Book 1999 – Clause 7.1

“The Contractor shall carry out the manufacture of Plant, the production and manufacture of Materials, and all other execution of the Works:

(a) in the manner (if any) specified in the Contract,
(b) in a proper workmanlike and careful manner, in accordance with recognised good practice, and
(c) with properly equipped facilities and non-hazardous Materials, except as otherwise specified in the Contract.”

📒 FIDIC Yellow Book 2017 – Clause 7.1

“The Contractor shall carry out the manufacture, supply, installation, testing and commissioning and/or repair of Plant, the production, manufacture, supply and testing of Materials, and all other operations and activities during the execution of the Works:

(a) in the manner (if any) specified in the Contract;
(b) in a proper workmanlike and careful manner, in accordance with recognized good practice; and
(c) with properly equipped facilities and non-hazardous Materials, except as otherwise specified in the Contract.”

🔍 Phrase-by-Phrase Breakdown

1. “The Contractor shall carry out…”

📘 1999:

“…the manufacture of Plant, the production and manufacture of Materials, and all other execution of the Works…”

📒 2017:

“…the manufacture, supply, installation, testing and commissioning and/or repair of Plant… all other operations and activities during the execution of the Works…”

What’s Changed?

Oh boy—a lot! The 1999 version was fairly focused on “build and deliver”. But in 2017, FIDIC got real about modern project scopes.

Today’s contractors don’t just hammer things together:

• They supply, install, test, and even commission equipment.
• They may also be responsible for repairs during execution.
• In turnkey and EPC projects, they may even handle integration and system performance.

So the 2017 language recognizes reality: contractors are multi-tasking execution partners, not just builders.

2. Sub-Clause (a): “in the manner (if any) specified in the Contract”

This one’s easy to gloss over, but it’s super important. Why?

Because it means the Contractor must follow specific methods or procedures, if the Contract documents say so. And if they don’t? Then (b) and (c) kick in.

✅ In real life: This could include method statements for piling, welding sequences, or a manufacturer’s installation manual. If your specs say “use Method A,” the Contractor must use Method A—even if Method B is technically better.

What’s new in 2017?
Nothing major here—text stayed the same, but the scope of activities (testing, commissioning, repair) now falls under this obligation too.

3. Sub-Clause (b): “in a proper workmanlike and careful manner, in accordance with recognized good practice”

This is the heart of the clause.

Let’s break this down:

• “Proper” = not sloppy, not rushed, and not amateur.
• “Workmanlike” = the work looks and functions like it was done by skilled tradespeople. Think clean welds, proper insulation, neat cable routing.
• “Careful manner” = not just aesthetics, but also safety, precision, and thoughtfulness in how the work is carried out.
• “Recognized good practice” = this is the lifeline when the contract doesn’t specify the exact method. You follow the accepted norms in your field.

What does “recognized good practice” mean in real-world terms?

Glad you asked. Here’s where we bring in international standards:

So when Clause 7.1(b) says “recognized good practice,” it means:

“If we didn’t spell out how to do it, go with what your country’s engineers would consider standard, safe, and proven.”

What’s different in 2017?

• Textually, almost nothing—but now it applies to a broader range of activities: not just building, but also commissioning and testing.
• The implication is that these tasks, too, must meet recognized professional standards.

4. Sub-Clause (c): “with properly equipped facilities and non-hazardous Materials…”

This part says:

“Hey Contractor—don’t work out of a shed, and don’t use toxic or sketchy materials.”

“Properly equipped facilities” means:

• Your fabrication yards, plants, and temporary facilities must meet the quality needed for this job.
• If you’re welding, you better have certified jigs and quality control systems.
• If you’re batching concrete, the plant should meet standards (like IS 4926 or ASTM C94).

“Non-hazardous materials”:

This is all about health, safety, and the environment:

• No asbestos, no toxic chemicals.
• Materials must meet safety standards under MSDS, REACH, RoHS, or local environmental laws.

✅ In practice: Always check material safety approvals. If the Employer later finds you used hazardous insulation or paints, you’re in breach—even if no one noticed during installation.

2017 vs 1999? Again, text is the same—but the scope of what it applies to is broader in 2017 due to the extended contractor responsibilities (e.g., testing fluids, commissioning gases, etc.).

🎯 Bonus: Why Does 2017 Add “all other operations and activities…”?

This tiny addition makes a huge difference.

Let’s say you’re not physically “building” anything, but you’re:

• Running system diagnostics,
• Handling temporary shutdowns for tie-ins,
• Adjusting equipment for performance tuning.

In 1999, that might not have fallen clearly under “execution of the Works.”

But in 2017? No question—it’s part of the execution, and you’re responsible for doing it properly, safely, and using the right methods.

🧠 3️⃣ Key Interpretations and Implications

How do we read Clause 7.1 like a contract whisperer—and what happens if you misread it?

✍️ Let’s Revisit the Core Language

The core obligation in Clause 7.1 (in both editions) is this:

The Contractor must execute the works:

• In the manner (if any) specified in the Contract
• In a proper, workmanlike, and careful manner
• In accordance with recognized good practice
• Using properly equipped facilities and non-hazardous materials

Sounds straightforward? It’s not always. There are layers of interpretation here—and a few trapdoors too.

Let’s break them down.

🔍 Phrase 1: “Proper workmanlike and careful manner”

This phrase has been around in contract law for centuries. It’s like an old-school quality stamp—but with no built-in measuring stick.

So what does it mean?

It means:

• Use skilled labor (not just cheap labor).
• Don’t rush the job or “wing it.”
• Ensure alignment, finishes, seals, and joints are professionally done.
• Think ahead: protect work from weather damage, follow up with QC, etc.

It’s basically telling the Contractor:

“Behave like a competent contractor in your industry would if this was their own project and reputation on the line.”

What if they don’t?

Under Clause 7.5 (Rejection), the Engineer has full rights to say:

“Nope. That’s not acceptable. Do it again—and on your dime.”

This phrase isn’t just about how something looks—it also connects directly to:

• Performance
• Safety
• Durability

If a sloppy joint leads to a gas leak or wiring fault later? Clause 7.1(b) gets pulled out in the dispute.

🧭 Phrase 2: “Recognized good practice”

Here’s the fun one—the Fuzzy Phrase of the Year.

What’s “recognized good practice”? And who decides?

Well, here’s the thing: FIDIC doesn’t define it explicitly. But you’re expected to interpret it based on the context:

• Jurisdiction (🇮🇳 India vs 🇺🇸 US vs 🇬🇧 UK = different expectations)
• Trade or discipline (electrical ≠ civil ≠ HVAC)
• Project complexity (data center ≠ warehouse)

Let’s get concrete:

In India:

It might mean following IS 456 for concrete and NBC 2016 for safety.

In the US:

You’re looking at ASTM, ACI, and OSHA.

In the UK:

BS EN codes, CDM 2015 regulations, and maybe BREEAM guidelines.

Now here’s the kicker: If your contract doesn’t specify which standards apply and the parties are from different countries, you can get into serious trouble.

That’s why savvy Employers add a rider in their Particular Conditions like:

“For the purposes of Clause 7.1, ‘recognized good practice’ shall include the latest applicable versions of ASTM/IS/BS EN standards…”

Why does this matter?

Because recognized good practice becomes your fallback when the Contract is silent. If your method fails inspection but follows that “recognized practice,” you’re probably safe. If not—you could be liable, even if you thought your way was “just fine.”

⚠️ Phrase 3: “Properly equipped facilities”

This is FIDIC’s way of saying:

“Don’t show up with a toolbox and a dream—bring real infrastructure.”

Whether it’s a fabrication plant, a batching facility, or a site lab, the Contractor needs:

• The right tools
• Certified equipment
• Skilled technicians
• Quality control procedures

This is important in:

• Offsite fabrication (think pre-cast yards or HVAC unit assembly)
• Batching concrete (where the quality is highly variable)
• Commissioning labs (for process systems)

If you cut corners here—like running a rebar bending yard with makeshift tools—you’re violating Clause 7.1(c), and the Engineer can demand rework or reject the output.

☣️ Phrase 4: “Non-hazardous materials”

Seems obvious, right? But here’s where regional standards matter again.

Let’s say your insulation material is banned in the UK under REACH or the US under EPA, but still available in India. What happens?

If the Contract says “non-hazardous materials,” and the material has:

• High VOC emissions,
• Toxic residuals, or
• Carcinogenic properties,

…you’re in breach—even if no one stopped you during installation.

➡️ That’s why Engineers often demand Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) or RoHS certifications.

If there’s a dispute, Clause 7.1(c) becomes the test:

“Was this material considered hazardous under recognized good practice or regulatory standards at the time of installation?”

🔁 Comparing Risk Profiles: 1999 vs 2017

Let’s talk about how the risk shifts in the 2017 edition.

📘 In 1999:

Clause 7.1 covered construction, material manufacture, and Plant fabrication.

📒 In 2017:

Now the clause covers:

• Supply
• Installation
• Testing
• Commissioning
• Repair during execution

That’s huge.

It means the Contractor must now ensure:

• Testing and commissioning are done using proper methods
• Commissioning checklists follow industry protocols
• Equipment startup sequences aren’t just “plug and play”

So if the power systems pass FAT but fail SAT because of poor testing protocols? That’s a Clause 7.1 issue now.

⚖️ Legal and Practical Implications

This clause opens the door to:

• Claims for defective workmanship
• Contractual rejections
• Potential terminations (if linked with repeated violations under Clause 15)

It also becomes a reference clause in disputes, especially for:

• Quality disagreements
• Rejection of works
• Defect cause tracing

🧠 In disputes, lawyers will often compare your method to “recognized good practice” as defined by:

• Codes (ASTM, IS, BS)
• Textbooks
• Manufacturer standards
• Safety regulations

✅ Practical Tip: Always tie 7.1 to your quality system

Under Clause 4.9 (Quality Management System) in 2017, you’re required to maintain a QMS.

Make sure Clause 7.1 is:

• Reflected in your Inspection & Test Plan (ITP)
• Backed by method statements
• Referencing standards in your submittals

Otherwise, you’re trying to meet a target without a bullseye.

📌 Summary of Key Interpretations

🇺🇸 United States – The American Arsenal

If your project is in the U.S. or you’re using U.S.-sourced materials, equipment, or systems, these are the heavy hitters you should be referencing:

In practice: If you’re installing ductwork in a cleanroom, ASHRAE 170 could apply. If you’re pouring concrete in winter, ACI 306 might guide your curing process.

🇬🇧 United Kingdom – British and Euro-Norms

For U.K.-based projects (or anything funded/inspected under U.K. jurisdiction), expect these standards to be recognized by engineers, inspectors, and even arbitrators:

In practice: If your insulation material doesn’t meet BS 476 fire resistance ratings, you’re toast—even if it passed ASTM tests.

🇮🇳 India – The BIS and NBC Backbone

India has a rich and mature system of construction standards—especially important for government-funded or public-sector projects. These include:

In practice: For MEP works in a metro station, CPWD’s civil and electrical specs are often mandatory benchmarks—even on private jobs.

🌐 Don’t Forget the Global Players – The ISO Layer

Some standards transcend national borders. For example:

These ISO standards don’t replace technical codes, but they define how to manage processes—especially useful if you’re building a power plant, pharma facility, or data center.

✍️ Practical Suggestion for Particular Conditions

To remove all ambiguity, you can write this into your Particular Conditions:

“For the purposes of Sub-Clause 7.1(b), ‘recognized good practice’ shall mean compliance with the most current version of applicable technical standards issued by ASTM, ACI, BIS, IS, BS EN, NFPA, ASHRAE, ISO, or any other internationally accepted standard relevant to the nature and location of the Works. Where multiple standards exist, the more stringent standard shall prevail unless otherwise agreed in writing.”

✨ Bonus Tip: Use a Standards Matrix in Your Specifications

If your project is multidisciplinary, add a discipline-wise matrix in the Employer’s Requirements or Specification that lists:

• The discipline
• Applicable standards
• Priority order if multiple codes apply

Here’s a quick example:

🔗 Clause 4.1 – Contractor’s General Obligations

This is the starting point for everything the Contractor is expected to do.

In both editions, it sets the tone:

📘1999: The Contractor shall execute and complete the Works and remedy any defects in accordance with the Contract.
📒2017: Same idea—but adds a twist: the Works and Sections must be fit for the purpose defined in the Employer’s Requirements.

✅ So how does this relate to Clause 7.1?

Clause 4.1 defines the what: complete the works to meet the Employer’s expectations.

Clause 7.1 defines the how: do it with skill, care, and quality, in line with best practice.

In 📒2017, this pairing becomes even more powerful because of that “fitness for purpose” requirement in 4.1. Now, poor workmanship under 7.1 isn’t just sloppy—it might also breach the intended function of the works. That opens the door to deeper liability, especially for EPC or turnkey projects.

🔗 Clause 4.9 – Quality Management System (📒 2017 only)

This is one of the most underused tools in the 2017 edition.

Clause 4.9 says the Contractor must have a Quality Management System (QMS) that covers:

• Work planning
• Quality control
• Procedures and inspections
• Documented compliance

Now here’s the juicy part:

If you don’t build in line with Clause 7.1 (i.e., recognized good practice), then your QMS isn’t doing its job—and that’s a double breach.

📌 In practice:

• Your ITPs (Inspection & Test Plans) must show how Clause 7.1 is being implemented.
• Method statements should cite the “recognized good practice” referenced in 7.1(b).
• QMS audits can be used to verify compliance with Clause 7.1.

Bottom line? Clause 4.9 is how you prove you’re delivering Clause 7.1 in real time.

🔗 Clause 5.4 – Technical Standards and Regulations

This is your anchor clause when the specs are silent or ambiguous.

Clause 5.4 says:

The Contractor shall comply with the technical standards, building codes, and regulations specified in the Contract—and, if not specified, use applicable standards as recognized in the country of execution.

🔗 So how does this connect with 7.1?

Let’s say Clause 7.1(b) says “recognized good practice,” but doesn’t tell you what that is.

Clause 5.4 is where you look for guidance—it tells you:

• Use NBC 2016 in India
• Use ASTM/ACI in the US
• Use BS EN/CDM in the UK

✅ If 7.1 is the execution filter, 5.4 is the technical source.

In 📒2017, this cross-link is even stronger, because the Contractor’s broader responsibilities (testing, repair, commissioning) mean they must be familiar with a wider body of standards.

🔗 Clause 7.5 – Rejection

Here’s the hammer.

Clause 7.1 sets the quality bar, but Clause 7.5 gives the Engineer the right to reject works that:

• Don’t meet the Contract requirements
• Are not executed in a “proper, workmanlike, and careful manner”
• Use unapproved or hazardous materials

🧠 The logic is:

7.1 sets the standard. 7.5 enforces it.

✅ In real life: Let’s say your ductwork is not sealed, or pipe insulation isn’t continuous.

• The Engineer inspects and says it’s “not acceptable”
• Contractor protests: “But it’s functionally OK!”
• Engineer refers to Clause 7.1(b): workmanlike manner isn’t optional
• And then triggers Clause 7.5: “This is rejected. Re-do it.”

📌 Pro tip: Always cite both clauses together when issuing NCRs or inspection comments.

🔗 Clause 11.1 and 11.4 – Defects Liability

Clause 7.1 isn’t just about execution—it’s also about long-term performance.

So what happens if something built “not in accordance with Clause 7.1” fails after Taking-Over?

That’s where Clause 11.1 kicks in:

The Contractor must remedy all defects in the Works during the Defects Notification Period (DNP).

But wait—what if the Contractor fails to remedy those defects?

🔨 Enter Clause 11.4 – Failure to Remedy Defects.

It allows the Employer to:

• Fix the defect themselves (or via third party), and
• Recover the cost from the Contractor

💥 If poor execution under Clause 7.1 leads to a latent defect, it triggers a chain reaction:

7.1 breach → 11.1 obligation → 11.4 cost recovery

Especially in 2017, this loop is more enforceable, thanks to the expanded scope of contractor responsibility.

📒 Additional 2017 Cross-Links to Know

In the 📒2017 edition, a few new clauses make Clause 7.1 even more integrated:

• Clause 4.7 (Setting Out) – Improper execution = misaligned works
• Clause 4.10 (Site Data) – If method of execution depends on data interpretation, poor execution could still lead to Contractor risk
• Clause 20.1 (Contractor’s Claims) – If the Contractor believes the execution method required under 7.1 leads to additional cost/time, they must claim it here

🎯 Summary Table – Clause 7.1 Cross-Reference Cheat Sheet

Scenario 1: The “It Looks Fine!” Welding Job

The Situation:

On a power substation project in India, the Contractor has welded all the steel support structures. At first glance, the welds look okay—no major gaps, no visible cracks. The site engineer approves it.

BUT… the welding procedure wasn’t as per IS 816, and the electrodes used weren’t stored properly. A third-party NDT (non-destructive test) later reveals undercutting and porosity in several joints.

Contractual Trigger:

• Clause 7.1(b) violated: Not done in a “workmanlike and careful manner.”
• Clause 7.1(c) may also be in play: Improper facilities = unqualified welders + no QC records.
• Clause 7.5 (Rejection) can now be used by the Engineer.

Outcome:

The Employer issues a non-conformance notice. The Contractor has to re-weld 38 joints and foot the bill for retesting. Delays + cost = avoidable drama.

FIDIC Insight:

Had the Contractor properly referenced IS 816, prepared a Welding Procedure Specification (WPS), and implemented Clause 4.9 (QMS), none of this would’ve happened.

Scenario 2: Imported Sealant, Exported Problem

The Situation:

On a U.K.-based data center project, the Contractor uses an imported sealant from a low-cost supplier. It’s widely used in Asia, but it’s not compliant with BS 476 Part 7 (surface spread of flame).

During the fire inspection, the building fails compliance. The entire interior fit-out grinds to a halt.

Contractual Trigger:

• Clause 7.1(c): Non-hazardous materials requirement violated.
• Clause 5.4 (Technical Standards) also applies—local regulations override the Contractor’s judgment.

Outcome:

The Employer orders removal and replacement of every fire seal. Time lost: 3 weeks. Cost impact: £80,000. Contractor reputation? Burned (ironically).

FIDIC Insight:

If the Contractor had used Clause 7.1 as a checklist, they would have realized:

“Recognized good practice” must be interpreted in local context, not just what’s “commonly used” somewhere else.

Scenario 3: Testing Woes at Commissioning

The Situation:

Under a FIDIC 2017 EPC contract, the Contractor completes a chilled water plant. Everything looks fine… until commissioning.

The temperature delta isn’t within design specs, and the cooling fails to meet ASHRAE 90.1 efficiency targets. Turns out the balancing valves weren’t calibrated, and the flushing wasn’t done per standard.

Contractual Trigger:

• 📒 Clause 7.1 (2017) now explicitly includes testing and commissioning as part of execution.
• Sub-Clause 7.1(b): Not done in accordance with “recognized good practice.”
• Possibly also Clause 10 (Employer Taking Over) is delayed.

Outcome:

The Employer refuses to issue the Taking-Over Certificate until systems are re-commissioned. Contractor eats the cost of rebalancing, re-flushing, and retesting.

FIDIC Insight:

In the 1999 edition, there was ambiguity whether testing was part of “execution.” But in 📒 2017? It’s 100% covered under Clause 7.1—so there’s no wiggle room.

Scenario 4: The Engineer’s Method Is Ignored

The Situation:

The Contract specifically states (under Employer’s Requirements) that pipeline trenching must be done with a shoring system, not open cut. This is because of soft soils and adjacent services.

The Contractor uses an open trench without shoring—because it’s cheaper and “worked fine last time.”

Guess what happens next? A mini landslide collapses the wall of a nearby electrical manhole.

Contractual Trigger:

• Clause 7.1(a): Contractor failed to follow the method specified in the Contract.
• Engineer invokes Clause 7.5 and Clause 4.1 (Contractor’s General Obligations).

Outcome:

Massive headache. The Employer claims third-party damage, and the Contractor has to redo the entire section + pay for power company repairs.

FIDIC Insight:

This is the clearest kind of Clause 7.1 violation. When a method is specified, the Contractor must follow it—even if they think they know better.

Scenario 5: Quality Records Missing During Audit

The Situation:

An audit by the Employer’s Lenders requires QMS documentation showing compliance with ISO 9001. The Contractor claims all works were done per spec, but can’t produce:

• Material test certificates
• Method statements
• Site inspection logs

The site team was busy and never filed them properly.

Contractual Trigger:

• 📒 Clause 7.1(b): Without documentation, how do you prove the work was “workmanlike”?
• Clause 4.9 (Quality Management System) also comes into play.

Outcome:

The Employer delays payment until documentation is submitted. Worse, the Lender files a non-compliance report that triggers escalation.

FIDIC Insight:

Doing the work right isn’t enough. Under Clause 7.1, you must also be able to prove you did it right—especially on international and funded projects.

🧠 Lessons from These What-Ifs

✅ Pro Tip: Use Clause 7.1 Like a Site Health Checklist

Before approving any work, ask:

• Was the method explicitly specified? → Clause 7.1(a)
• Was the work done by skilled labor and documented? → 7.1(b)
• Were correct materials and tools used? → 7.1(c)
• Did we follow a standard for what wasn’t specified? → “Recognized good practice”

If you answer “no” to any of those… it’s a claim or rejection waiting to happen.

✍️ 7️⃣ Suggestions for Clarity and Improvement

Let’s fine-tune Clause 7.1 to remove ambiguity, reduce disputes, and raise the bar on quality.

✅ The Problem with “Recognized Good Practice”

Let’s be real—this phrase sounds good in meetings, but it’s a minefield in execution if you don’t pin it down.

Why? Because:

• “Recognized” by whom?
• What’s “good practice” for a local contractor in Rajasthan may not cut it for a European-funded metro rail job.
• The Engineer and Contractor may have very different views on what’s acceptable.

How to fix it?

Spell it out.
In the Particular Conditions, you can include a definition like:

“For the purposes of Sub-Clause 7.1, ‘recognized good practice’ shall mean execution standards that comply with the latest applicable codes and guidelines issued by [ASTM / IS / BS EN / NFPA / ASHRAE / CPWD / ISO], or their internationally accepted equivalents, unless otherwise agreed in writing.”

Even better—add a discipline-wise matrix that shows which codes apply for:

• Civil works
• Electrical installations
• Fire protection
• HVAC
• Structural steel

It’s crystal clear. Everyone’s on the same page. Disputes drop dramatically.

✅ Add References to Specific Technical Standards

FIDIC gives you the structure—but not the substance. That’s your job.

You can enhance Clause 7.1 by referencing specific standards that fit your project type and location.

Want to go the extra mile? Include in the tender documents a clause like:

“All construction methods, materials, and installations shall conform to the standards listed in Annex X. In case of conflict, the more stringent standard shall apply.”

✅ Clarify the Phrase: “Proper Workmanlike Manner”

Now, this phrase is charmingly old-school—it’s been in contracts since the Victorian era. But that’s the problem—it’s too open to interpretation.

To make it bite-proof, consider adding this clarification:

“‘Proper workmanlike manner’ shall include use of trained/skilled labor, adherence to manufacturer’s installation manuals, and compliance with standard method statements and QMS protocols approved under Clause 4.9.”

And hey—mentioning Clause 4.9 (Quality Management System) here is gold. Why? Because it ties “workmanship” to an auditable system. If the QMS doesn’t cover it, it’s not compliant.

✅ Be Clear About “Properly Equipped Facilities”

This one’s sneaky. Clause 7.1(c) says the Contractor must use “properly equipped facilities”—but what counts?

Does a basic site lab qualify? What if rebar is bent manually on site?

To avoid debate, define minimum requirements, for example:

“‘Properly equipped facilities’ shall include, but not be limited to, the use of certified equipment for fabrication, quality testing, and installation, operated by trained personnel in accordance with applicable technical and safety standards.”

For larger or specialized projects, you could even require:

• Pre-approval of fabrication yards
• Equipment calibration records
• Verification of temporary works design under Clause 4.1 obligations

✅ Tidy Up “Non-Hazardous Materials”

Another potential flashpoint—especially in greenfield industrial projects or data centers.

What’s hazardous?

• Asbestos? Sure.
• VOC-heavy adhesives? Possibly.
• Lead-based paint? In some jurisdictions—absolutely.

Again, avoid the gray area. Write into your conditions:

“All materials shall be non-hazardous and compliant with applicable environmental laws, including REACH (EU), EPA (US), and CPCB (India). Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) shall be submitted for all products requiring health and safety clearance prior to procurement.”

Boom. That one line prevents hours of argument during submittal review.

✅ Consider Adding Digital Requirements (for Modern Projects)

If you’re working on a smart building, hospital, data center, or infrastructure involving BIM or digital QA/QC tools—Clause 7.1 can get a tech upgrade.

Try something like:

“The Contractor shall integrate digital quality records and execution logs into the project’s common data environment (CDE), using [BIM 360 / Procore / Fieldwire / etc.] as agreed in the Specification or Employer’s Requirements.”

This not only modernizes your contract—but makes it future-proof for audits and FM handovers.

✅ Align Clause 7.1 with the FIDIC Golden Principles

Remember Golden Principle GP3?

“The duties, rights, obligations and responsibilities of all the contract participants must be generally as defined in the General Conditions, and be clear.”

To stay compliant:

• Don’t change the structure of Clause 7.1
• Keep the three sub-points: (a) specified method, (b) workmanship/good practice, (c) facilities + materials
• Use Particular Conditions to enhance clarity, not rewrite intent

In short: don’t bend Clause 7.1—refine it.

📌 Final Takeaways

⚠️ A Few Things to Avoid in Customizing Clause 7.1

• Avoid overloading with too many cross-references—link only the most relevant clauses (like 4.1, 4.9, 5.4, and 7.5)
• Don’t eliminate the general language—it’s your legal safety net when specifics are missing
• Never remove “recognized good practice” entirely—it’s what helps you adapt to fast-evolving industries

🛠️ Want a Quick Plug-and-Play PC Rider?

Here’s a sample you can tweak for your contracts:

“Sub-Clause 7.1 – Modified for Clarity:
The Contractor shall execute the Works in a proper, workmanlike, and careful manner, in accordance with the latest applicable standards listed in Annex X of the Employer’s Requirements. For avoidance of doubt, ‘recognized good practice’ shall include compliance with the most current editions of ISO, IS, ASTM, BS EN, NFPA, or equivalent codes relevant to the Works. All works shall be carried out using qualified personnel, properly equipped facilities, and non-hazardous materials compliant with applicable health, safety, and environmental laws. The Contractor shall maintain quality records and method statements as part of the Quality Management System under Sub-Clause 4.9.”*