CCM Exam Dumps - FIDIC Contract Manager Questions and Answers

Both claims are valid under the Silver Book principles:

The error in the Employer ' s Requirements (typo in NTS-PW-01) leads to entitlement for additional piling costs.

The unforeseen hydrological data causing additional flood protection works qualify as unforeseeable physical conditions entitling the Contractor to compensation.

Hence, Option D is correct — the Contractor is entitled to both claims.

Under the FIDIC Red Book 1999, the Performance Certificate marks the end of the Contractor’s obligations under the contract (Sub-Clause 11.9). The Engineer must issue this certificate once the Defects Notification Period has ended, all Contractor ' s Documents are submitted, and all works including defect rectification have been completed and tested.

Option C is correct because the Engineer is required to issue the Performance Certificate within 28 days after these conditions are met.

Option D is correct as the certificate is conditional upon fulfilling specific contract requirements (e.g., completion of works, submission of documents).

Option A is incorrect because acceptance of works usually happens earlier (e.g., taking-over certificate); the Performance Certificate represents completion of all contractual obligations, not just acceptance.

Option B is incorrect as the Performance Certificate confirms contractual completion but does not necessarily imply full mutual performance beyond contract terms.

Option A is correct: “Notice” is a defined term under FIDIC 2017 Red Book; “Other Communications” is a separate category, also defined but distinct.

Option D is correct: Notices, Notices of Dissatisfaction, and Certificates require delivery to all Parties and the Engineer, whereas other communications may not have such strict requirements.

Option B is incorrect as there are contractual differences.

Option C is partially correct but “Other Communications” and “Notice” are distinct terms, so A is more precise.

This statement is true. The FIDIC Yellow and Silver Books (2017 editions) include a clear provision that the Works, or the parts designed by the Contractor, must be fit for their ordinary purposes, reflecting the Contractor’s responsibility for design and performance. This introduces an express fitness-for-purpose obligation, which was less explicit in earlier editions.

This provision clarifies risk allocation related to design liability, ensuring that the Contractor is accountable for the fitness of the designed works unless otherwise specified.

Option A is correct: The initial programme must include the date for the Contractor’s access to the Site.

Option D is correct: Key delivery dates for Plant and Materials are essential elements of the programme.

Option B relates to updated/revised programmes, not the initial programme.

Option C generally relates to remedial work and is part of revised or detailed programmes.

Under FIDIC Red Book 1999, Sub-Clause 17.3 defines Employer’s Risks, which include war, hostilities, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, or military/usurped power. The scenario clearly falls within “insurrection,” making it an Employer’s Risk. Consequently, under Sub-Clause 17.4, the Contractor is entitled to both Extension of Time (EOT) and Cost if such risks affect execution of the Works.

At this stage, the Engineer must acknowledge that the event qualifies as an Employer’s Risk and that entitlement in principle exists. However, the exact quantum of delay and Cost cannot yet be determined because the situation is ongoing. FIDIC practice allows for such claims to be assessed after the effects are known. Importantly, the Contractor has already provided notice, satisfying Sub-Clause 20.1 requirements.

Option B is incorrect because entitlement is not conditional upon the end of the event; only quantification is deferred. Option C is wrong because foreseeability does not negate Employer’s Risks explicitly listed in Sub-Clause 17.3. Option D misapplies Sub-Clause 2.1, which relates to access to the Site, not political violence or insurrection.

Therefore, Option A correctly reflects FIDIC principles: recognition of entitlement with later assessment of time and cost.

Under FIDIC Red Book 2017, Clause 21 (Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board), particularly Sub-Clause 21.3, provides for the DAAB’s role in dispute avoidance, including informal assistance during site visits. This is a proactive mechanism designed to resolve issues before they escalate into formal disputes.

Key procedural requirements include: (1) both Parties must agree that they want DAAB involvement (Option A), (2) a joint written request must be submitted to the DAAB before assistance is provided (Option C), and (3) both Parties must be present during any informal discussions to ensure transparency and fairness (Option D). These steps ensure neutrality, equal participation, and procedural integrity.

Option B is incorrect and therefore the correct answer to the question. The Engineer has no formal role in authorizing or issuing a “non-objection letter” for DAAB informal assistance. The DAAB operates independently of the Engineer, and its involvement is strictly based on joint agreement between the Employer and Contractor. Introducing Engineer approval would contradict the independence and dispute avoidance function of the DAAB.

Thus, Option B does not belong to the required steps and is not supported by FIDIC provisions.

This statement is false. Acceptance of a revised programme that shows completion within the Time for Completion does not automatically entitle the Contractor to extra payment. The Contractor must demonstrate additional costs arising from the instruction or circumstances to claim payment.

The acceptance of a compliant programme is a scheduling and administrative matter, not a compensation guarantee.

Under FIDIC Red Book (1999), the Value Engineering Clause requires the Contractor to notify the Engineer with full details and cost implications when proposing Value Engineering changes. The Engineer then follows the Variation procedure in Sub-Clause 3.5 to agree or determine the cost adjustment, which will be reflected in the Contract Price.

This ensures transparent handling of Value Engineering proposals and proper contractual adjustments.

The use of vague phrases such as " not used " in Particular Conditions to delete provisions of the General Conditions without replacement or explanation leads to ambiguity and unclear contractual obligations. Such drafting can cause confusion as it fails to clarify whether the deleted provisions are simply not applicable or replaced by other terms. This practice is discouraged because it creates legal uncertainty and possible disputes regarding the rights and responsibilities of the parties.

Option A exemplifies this problem, as it deletes General Conditions clauses without specifying alternatives or clarifications.

Option B is a good practice where deletions are replaced by well-defined clauses to maintain contract balance.

Option C describes a clear method of issuing clarifications, promoting transparency and traceability.

Option D is consistent with standard practice, where clarifications during tender are formalized by contract amendments.