International Construction Law Review
NEW FIDIC YELLOW BOOK (2017): A CASE OF WHEN MORE (WORDS) MEAN LESS (CLARITY)?
Frédéric Gillion1 and Michael Cottrell2,3
INTRODUCTION
At its International Contract Users’ Conference in December 2016, FIDIC previewed – to much fanfare – the proposed second edition of its Yellow Book (“YB2”). The preamble to the conference agenda referred to the unveiling as “a highly anticipated event for the global construction industry”, and much debate ensued (both at the conference and since) over the many significant changes that the new amendments are poised to usher in.
Due for publication later this year together with the second edition of the Red and Silver Books, YB2 represents the first update to FIDIC’s Yellow Book since its release in 1999 as part of the 1999 FIDIC Rainbow Suite (the “1999 YB”). Since then, it has become one of the most widely used standard forms of contract internationally, setting something of a benchmark for parties involved in tendering for large-scale design and build projects. However, the 1999 YB has not been without its issues, many of which have been raised with FIDIC over the intervening 17 years. As such, the process of amending the Yellow Book – which has been in train for some time – has been closely followed by both those involved in international construction and its advisers for indications that the concerns of the industry have been addressed.
Whilst the FIDIC drafting committee has trialled certain of the proposed changes to the industry in recent years (particularly with the release in 2008 of FIDIC Gold Book for DBO projects), it is only since the proposed draft was circulated to the conference attendees in late 2016 that the extent of the amendments – both in terms of number and scope – have been fully appreciated. In comparison to the first edition, the updated iteration of the Yellow Book is longer: the core terms span 108 pages to the first edition’s 63 pages, whilst the word count has grown by some 50%. There are also more
1 Partner, Pinsent Masons LLP (Paris).
2 Solicitor, Pinsent Masons LLP (London).
3 The views expressed herein are entirely those of the authors and not necessarily those of the firm or organisation with which they are affiliated.
350