Construction Law/Design


QUESTION: A structural consultant was appointed under FIDIC's Client/Consultant Model Services Agreement, 3rd Edition 1998 (ISBN 2-88432-014-8) by a Turnkey Contractor (TKC) for the structural design of a residential block of apartments. The construction is ongoing but the TKC has complained that the bar reinforcement for the project per the Consultant's design is excessive and has resulted in huge over-expenditure (about 3x TKC's budget). Indeed, the supervising officer on the Employer's side has made similar observations on site that the building seems overly reinforced. TKC has recently completed 3 similar projects in the locality and in comparison with this project, they all show bar reinforcement utilization well below that of the current project designed by this consultant. Incidentally, this is the first and only project the TKC has engaged the services of this consultant. TKC has threatened to stop the payment of remaining fees and refer the matter for dispute adjudication insisting that the consultant had been negligent. Is the TKC right in his action? How could the TKC prove that the consultant had been negligent? Are there similar cases you are aware of?

ANSWER: Dear Yaw,

A consultant may be cautious or incompetent, but it is difficult to prove that he has been negligent.  He merely has to consider alternatives and reject them for his own reasons to avoid being negligent.  

Has the TKC asked another consultant to check the current design and advise on whether or not it is over designed?  Has the TKC discussed the matter with the consultant?  What was the consultant's response?  The consultant may have sound reasons for the quantity of reinforcement.  Has the TKC considered that the other consultants may have under-designed the other buildings?  I suggest that the TKC should get answers to these questions before he takes any action regarding withholding payment of fees or getting adjudicators involved.  Incidentally, why did the TKC change his consultant?

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Many thanks for your prompt response; much appreciated.
Yes, TKC has asked another consultant to review the design and give his opinion. This exercise is ongoing and the consultant is yet to provide his findings / opinion. TKC has not formally discussed the situation with the consultant. Consultant has submitted his invoice for monthly payment (as per the payment terms) but TKC is refusing to pay. My question is; has TKC got any grounds at all to refuse payment on the basis that he thinks the structure had been over-designed and hence cause him huge over expenditure? If the other consultant comes with an opinion that affirms TKC's position, would that be sufficient enough grounds to justify the refusal to pay the remaining fees? Can TKC call on the PI for the consultant? What processes should TKC follow?

Dear Yaw,

The TKC can do whatever he likes, but he must be prepared to justify his actions and to pay the price for them. I presume that the TKC changed consultants to save money and now is upset because he has uncovered the cost of saving money. The TKC must study his contract with the consultant to see if he has grounds for withholding payment or taking other action.  If there is nothing in the contract, then he is relying on general law and needs good legal advice.  

If he calls on the PI for the consultant, then he will involve the insurance company, who will want full justification for his claim.  If the insurance company denies the claim, the case could go to court, where further costs and justification will be needed.  In any event the TKC will need full documentation, so he must get the documentation before he does anything.  If he withholds payment on a vague notion, then he will get sued for restitution, including damages for destroying the consultant's reputation.  Also any future consultant will increase his rates due to the increased risk.

The TKC has no grounds for doing anything until he has the second opinion and he has the consultants response to his questions.  Even if the second opinion says that the reinforcement is excessive, the TKC must ask the consultant for his justification before taking further action.  At the moment the jury is out, as the TKC has no evidence as to which consultant is correct.  It could be that the first consultants designed the project using sophisticated finite analysis software and the second consultant designed the project using manual methods.  Neither would be wrong.  It is possible that if the reinforcement is more, then the concrete may be more and the foundations are bigger to carry the extra weight.  

The TKC needs the full facts before he does anything.  Once he has all the facts, then he can take the steps stated in his contract with the consultant.  

Construction Law

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Peter M. Elliott


First response to queries regarding extensions of time, variations orders, site instructions and payment using FIDIC and other forms of Conditions of Contract, based on English Law, and derivatives only. Anyone who needs advice about EoT should download and study the SCL Delay & Disruption Protocol before submitting a question.


Value . . .
It's unwise to pay too much, but it's unwise to pay too little. When you pay too much you lose a little money, that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing you bought it to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot. It can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it's well to add something for the risk you run.
And if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better.
. . . John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
"We are too poor to buy something cheap"
.Romanian Proverb 2002
A lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit. George Herbert (English poet 1593-1633)
I said it in Hebrew, I said it in Dutch,
I said it in German and Greek:
But I wholly forgot (and it vexes me much)
That English is what you speak!" Hunting of the Snark - Lewis Caroll
Match your presentation to the reader!
The joy of food lasts but an hour, of sleep but a day, of a woman, but a month, but the joy of a building lasts a lifetime. Syrian proverb.
Comments and observations leading to improvements in the translation of FIDIC Red & Yellow books into Romanian prior to approval by FIDIC (reference 'Preface to the Romanian edition')

Institution of Civil Engineers, Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants, Society of Construction Law, Dispute Resolution Board Foundation

B Sc(Hons) in Civil Engineering

©2016 All rights reserved.