CCM Exam Dumps - FIDIC Contract Manager Questions and Answers

Option D correctly captures the difference between Yellow and Silver Books (1999):

In the Yellow Book, the Contractor may raise concerns after contract close.

In the Silver Book, the Contractor must scrutinize and report on Employer’s Requirements during the tender period, and after contract close this duty lapses.

Other options misunderstand timing or scope of scrutiny.

Under FIDIC Red Book 1999, price adjustments after the Time for Completion are based on the indices or prices applicable on the date 49 days before the expiry of the Time for Completion, not the current index. This prevents the Contractor from benefiting from price fluctuations after the contract period.

This clause ensures fairness by locking the price basis as of a fixed reference date, protecting the Employer from increased costs due to delays.

Option B is correct: When instructed to implement a Variation promptly, the Contractor must commence work and keep detailed records for subsequent valuation and impact assessment.

Option D is correct: The Contractor is required to submit, within 28 days, a description, programme, and price proposal relating to the Variation as part of contract procedures.

Option A is incorrect: The Contractor generally must proceed promptly regardless of dispute about foreseeability but may reserve rights via notices.

Option C is incorrect: Safety cannot be compromised; the Contractor should not undertake hazardous work without mitigation.

Option E is incorrect: The Contractor is generally bound to start work upon instruction even if the price is not yet agreed.

Under FIDIC 1999, Sub-Clause 2.5 [Employer’s Claims] provides that the Employer is entitled to make claims against the Contractor, which may result in deductions from the Contract Price and from Interim Payment Certificates.

Option C is correct. Delay Damages (Sub-Clause 8.7) are a classic example of Employer’s entitlement. If the Contractor fails to complete within the Time for Completion, the Employer is entitled to delay damages, which are typically deducted directly from payments due.

Option A is also correct. Under provisions relating to Nominated Subcontractors (Sub-Clause 5.4), if the Employer pays a nominated subcontractor directly (e.g., due to Contractor default), such payments may be recovered from the Contractor and deducted from the Contract Price via Sub-Clause 2.5.

Option B is incorrect because costs related to reviewing Contractor’s Documents are generally part of the Engineer’s duties and are not recoverable from the Contractor unless explicitly stated.

Option D is incorrect because the use of Employer’s materials is typically accounted for within the contract pricing structure and not treated as a claim under Sub-Clause 2.5.

Thus, Sub-Clause 2.5 serves as a key mechanism for the Employer to recover amounts due through deductions, particularly in cases like delay damages and payments made on behalf of the Contractor.

Both statements are correct:

Y is right that payment of Delay Damages does not relieve the Contractor from completing the Works.

You are also correct that excessive deduction of Delay Damages can reduce the Contractor’s cash flow, potentially worsening delays.

This situation requires careful balance between enforcing contractual rights and maintaining project progress.

Under FIDIC 2017, Sub-Clause 8.3 [Programme] introduces a clearer and more structured mechanism for the review and acceptance of the Contractor’s Programme. When the Contractor submits a revised programme, the Engineer (or Employer in the Silver Book) has a defined period—typically 14 days—to review it and issue a Notice of Non-Compliance if the programme does not meet contractual requirements.

If no such notice is issued within this timeframe, the contract provides a “deemed acceptance” (deemed consent) mechanism. This means that the Engineer is considered to have accepted the revised programme, and it becomes the operative Programme for the Works.

Option B correctly reflects this concept. It ensures continuity of project execution and prevents administrative delays caused by inaction. This is aligned with FIDIC 2017’s emphasis on efficiency, proactive management, and avoidance of bottlenecks.

Option D is incorrect because “no objection” is weaker than “deemed consent.” FIDIC explicitly uses the concept of consent, not merely absence of objection. Options A and C contradict the contract’s intent of maintaining workflow.

Thus, the clause ensures that lack of response does not hinder progress, reinforcing disciplined contract administration.

Under all FIDIC standard forms (Red, Yellow, and Silver Books, both 1999 and 2017 editions), the Contractor has a clear contractual obligation to notify the Employer (or the Engineer, depending on the form) if it discovers errors, faults, or defects in documents or instructions of a technical nature.

This obligation is explicitly stated in Sub-Clause 1.9 [Errors in the Employer’s Requirements] (particularly in Yellow and Silver Books) and similarly reflected in provisions related to documents, drawings, and instructions in the Red Book. The Contractor is required to carefully examine the documents provided and promptly give notice upon identifying any discrepancies, ambiguities, or technical defects.

The purpose of this obligation is to ensure early detection and correction of design or specification issues, thereby minimizing delays, rework, and disputes. It also reflects the principle of cooperation and proactive risk management embedded in FIDIC contracts.

Failure by the Contractor to notify such errors may result in loss of entitlement to additional time or cost if the issue later impacts execution. Therefore, this notification duty is both a technical and contractual safeguard.

Thus, the statement is true, as FIDIC imposes a clear obligation on the Contractor to notify discovered technical errors or defects.

This statement is true. Under FIDIC Silver Book 1999, Sub-Clause 8.6, the Employer can instruct the Contractor to submit a revised programme to meet the contractual Time for Completion. If, after such instruction, the revised programme still shows the Works will not complete on time, the Employer may claim additional costs (such as delay damages or compensation) due to continued delay.

Thus, the Employer’s right to claim additional costs is contingent on the revised programme not enabling timely completion.

Option B is correct: BIM is indeed a digital data technology applicable throughout the project lifecycle.

Option D is correct: Use of BIM requires careful consideration of contract clauses and appropriate adjustments in Particular Conditions.

Option A is incorrect; the 1999 edition does not mandate BIM use.

Option C is false; BIM improves quality, accuracy, delivery times, and cost efficiency.

Under FIDIC Yellow Book 1999, Sub-Clause 8.5 [Delays Caused by Authorities] addresses situations where delays arise due to actions or inactions of public authorities. Sub-paragraph (b) specifically provides that delays caused by authorities may entitle the Contractor to an extension of time, provided certain conditions are satisfied.

A critical condition clearly stated in this clause is that the Contractor must have “diligently followed the procedures laid down by the relevant legally constituted public authorities in the Country.” This requirement reflects an important FIDIC contract management principle: entitlement to relief is conditional upon proper Contractor performance. If the Contractor fails to comply with statutory procedures, permit processes, or administrative requirements, then delays cannot be attributed to the authorities for the purpose of claiming time extension.

From a practical perspective, this clause ensures a balanced allocation of risk. While the Employer bears the risk of delays caused by external authorities, the Contractor retains responsibility for proper compliance with all legal and procedural obligations. The Engineer will typically assess whether the Contractor acted diligently before granting any extension of time under Clause 8.4 in conjunction with Sub-Clause 8.5.

Therefore, the statement is correct, as diligence in following authority procedures is a prerequisite for claiming delay under this provision.