Three pillars are at the heart of global efforts to boost sustainability and make our built environment cleaner, greener and more socially responsible: construction, energy and technology. These three industries have come to be intricately connected in an era of transformation on a scale never seen before.
By Ellis Baker and Richard Hill
Across the world, leading construction industry players are developing innovative projects and deploying new technology to transform the way we live and work.
Meanwhile, energy and mining & metals companies in rural Africa are increasingly installing generating assets and distribution facilities to ensure continuity of energy supply for their operations.
The predicted increase in flexible working may well result in a more widespread move to the development of "smart cities," with technology built into the heart of daily life.
All this is happening amid the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, which has shifted perceptions of how the world may look in the future.
But the pandemic has also forced project owners, developers and contractors to look at their contractual terms more closely, as budgets are cut and works are interrupted due to government restrictions.
This compendium of articles, written by colleagues from offices across the world covers a wide range of issues, examines some of the key topics relating to the shifting relationship between the construction, energy and technology sectors in our rapidly changing world.
It looks at the role the construction industry is playing in the development of distributed energy projects in the US and battery storage in the UK.
In the Middle East, the boom in the construction of smart cities has led to the use of new project structures to embed energy -saving measures within the developments. In Africa, renewable energy projects driven by public procurement programs have attracted investors and developers from around the world, drawn by the vast opportunities on the continent.
Increasing work in a volatile environment, however, means that risk allocation and mitigation are more important than ever. Courts in regions as diverse as Russia, India, Latin America, the Middle East and the UK have all been examining force majeure and risk clauses within contracts. Industry players would be wise to take note of these decisions and trends as markets are beginning to return to post-coronavirus normality.
Insolvency can also be another resultant risk, with recent reforms in the UK, Australia and Singapore affecting the construction sector if contracts are not carefully reviewed and, potentially, redrafted to reflect the new rules.
Although the current environment may have raised awareness of risk in construction projects, there is no doubt that the recent disruption and focus on innovation, new technology and sustainability is bringing immense opportunity to the industry around the world with a real chance of lasting impact.
By Aaron Potter and Jesse Hollingsworth
Microgrids are an increasingly attractive means to provide reliable electricity, generated on-site, customized for the needs of the individual location and sensitive to the environment.
By David Strickland, Michael Yates and Lane Ransom
The commissioning and startup phase of any energy project—liquefied natural gas, power, renewables, petrochemical—represents an important, and potentially perilous, transitional period during the construction process.
The coronavirus pandemic has had, and will continue to have, profound effects on the global construction industry. There have been and will continue to be substantial delays and cost impacts as a result of labor shortages, disruption to supply chains and financial pressure.
Delays in construction projects are common and even more so at the moment, and so the question of ensuring that there is a mechanism for the prompt payment of damages in the event of a contractual breach is arguably now more important than ever.
With the threat of increased insolvencies as an effect of the COVID-19 pandemic remaining very real, the construction sector needs to be aware of the impact of changes to insolvency laws.
In 2020, the UK courts heard two significant cases with an impact on the way construction contracts and subcontracts are drawn up and carried out, affecting employers, contractors and subcontractors to major projects.
By Richard Hill, Sofia Lambert and Kit Goodfellow
Increased battery storage capacity can and is being encouraged in order to facilitate the move towards the decarbonisation of electricity generation and can contribute to greater resilience and efficiency of integrated grids.
By Matthew Richards and Rhulani Matsimbi
Investment in infrastructure in Africa has soared in recent years, and construction activity has risen with it.
By Paddy Mohen
With its huge mineral potential, Africa is likely to see a number of mining projects move from exploration and feasibility to construction.
By Chris Duncan and Daria Plotnikova
The past few years have seen a shift in the way contracts for construction projects in Russia have been drawn up and scrutinized in response to growing awareness of risk.
By Ibaad Hakim and Frederic Akiki
Urban environments are in the middle of a revolution. The powers of technology and data are being harnessed to make cities safer, more efficient and more sustainable.
By Luka Kristovic-Blazevic, Michael Turrini and Ghazi Kayal
COVID-19 has had a significant effect on construction projects around the world, delaying work and forcing many parties to go back to their contracts and examine whether there is scope for a claim, and Saudi Arabia was no exception.
By Matthew Secomb and Aditya Singh
Where large projects exist, disputes will often arise. The Indian construction sector is no exception, but the lack of a standard form contract and the option of several forms of dispute resolution means that resolving disputes can be complex.
In 2020, the UK courts heard two significant cases with an impact on the way construction contracts and subcontracts are drawn up and carried out, affecting employers, contractors and subcontractors to major projects.
Stay current on your favorite topics
In 2021, the UK courts heard two significant cases with an impact on the way construction contracts and subcontracts are drawn up and carried out, affecting employers, contractors and subcontractors to major projects.
One case concerned the limits of a descoping power under an NEC contract, and the other addressed the often complicated issue of when title to goods transfers in a construction project.
1999 FIDIC Red Book
provides that after terminating the contract for convenience, the employer shall not execute the works themselves or arrange for any part of the works to be executed by another contractor.
A Scottish case in late 2020 considered the contractual power to omit works, and highlighted key principles applicable to the question of whether omitted works can be transferred to another contractor.
The descoping or omission of works, which is sometimes referred to as a 'negative variation', relates to the removal of part or all of the works awarded to a contractor or subcontractor, and is a common feature of construction contracts.
The contractual right to omit works grants employers and contractors flexibility over the scope of works in main contracts and subcontracts, respectively. However, it may also deprive the contractor or subcontractor of the 'right' to make a profit on the omitted works.
The omission of work from one contractor for the purpose of giving the work to another contractor is a particularly problematic issue, especially where the contract does not expressly permit an omission to be made for this purpose or does not provide for adequate compensation to the contractor whose work has been descoped.
Vesting clauses and certificates play a critical role in determining who owns what under construction and engineering contracts, and must clearly reflect the parties' mutual intention as to when title transfers
The framework governing the right to descope works varies across the standard form contracts. Contract forms typically place some form of limitation on the extent to which works may be omitted.
The FIDIC Red Book 1999 and the FIDIC Red Book 2017 permit omissions to the work, but prohibit the employer from omitting work where the employer intends to hand over the work to another contractor.
Similarly, the FIDIC Red Book 1999 provides that after terminating the contract for convenience, the employer shall not execute the works themselves or arrange for any part of the works to be executed by another contractor. The 2017 edition permits the employer to do so only after the contractor has been properly compensated for its losses, including loss of profit.
Not all standard form contracts expressly provide for the omission of works for the purpose of giving the work to another contractor. Although the JCT Design and Build 2016 permits 'the addition, omission or substitution of any work', it does not provide for the provision of the omitted work to other contractors.
This raises the question of whether omitted work can be given to another contractor if a contract does not clearly provide for the right to do so. This was the issue that arose recently before the courts of Scotland.
The claim was brought by subcontractor Van Oord UK against Dragados UK, the main contractor in a project for the design, management and construction of the Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project (Van Oord UK Ltd v Dragados UK Ltd [2020] CSOH 87).
The subcontract between Dragados and Van Oord incorporated standard form NEC3 subcontract conditions, and the subcontracted works included soft dredging works and the filling of caissons. However, Dragados from time to time transferred omitted work falling within the scope of the subcontract to one of two other subcontractors.
The subcontract said the contractor could give an instruction to the subcontractor which changed the works, and enabled the contractor to omit any provisional sum or other work in these circumstances. Under the terms of the subcontract, the subcontractor had no claim for loss of revenue, opportunity, profit or indirect loss or damage against the contractor in relation to this.
The court followed the guidance provided in a similar English case which involved a similar omission of work from one subcontractor and the engagement of an alternative subcontractor to carry out the omitted work.
The applicable principles derived from this case law are that a contract for the execution of work confers on the contractor not only a duty to carry out the work but a corresponding right to complete the work which it contracted to carry out.
A clause permitting variation to the works must be construed carefully, so as not to deprive the contractor of its right to complete the work and realise profit from completion. Clear words are needed to grant an entitlement to omit work from one contractor and to transfer it to another.
The motive or reason for the omission of the work is irrelevant. The test is whether the clause relied upon is wide enough to permit the change.
After applying these principles, the court held that Dragados did not have a clear contractual entitlement to omit works and to transfer them to another subcontractor in these circumstances.
Descoping work, whether by a negative variation or even a termination for convenience, may be an uncomplicated matter where the employer simply wants to omit the work in question. But, where an employer wishes to descope work to give it to another contractor, the employer's conduct is often treated far more seriously in law, and may constitute a breach or even a repudiation of the contract in question by the employer.
Drafting clarity is therefore needed. Contract clauses dealing with variations and termination for convenience should indicate either way whether work may or may not be descoped and given to another contractor. Doing so is highly desirable, to prevent there being disputes over the proper scope and exercise of a variations or a termination power.
Secondly, if work is permitted to be descoped and given to another contractor, the mechanism for valuing the omission of work must be as straightforward as possible. Commonly, an omission will involve the deduction of the relevant part of the contract price for the omitted work, whilst compensating the contractor for costs it may have incurred prior to the work being omitted, including overheads.
The recoverability of any loss of profit for the contractor on the omitted work may be controversial, and should therefore be addressed in the contractual mechanism for valuing omitted works.
2017 FIDIC Red Book
permits the employer to execute the works itself or arrange for any part of the works to be executed by another contractor only after the contractor has been properly compensated for its losses, including loss of profit. contractor.
The issue of when title to goods transfers from a contractor to an employer can be a critical issue, especially when a party to a project has become insolvent. An English case in early 2020 considered this issue, and the application of vesting clauses and certificates.
Vesting clauses in construction contracts provide for the transfer of ownership of a contractor's plant, equipment or unfixed materials from the contractor to the employer. One of the main purposes of these clauses is to give the parties clarity as to who owns what, and exactly when title will be transferred from one party to the other.
Vesting clauses sometimes use a complementary device in the form of 'vesting certificates', issued by a contractor or supplier, which denote the transfer of title to identified goods.
Construction contracts often provide that title to goods will transfer to an employer when the goods are delivered to the employer's site. The position is more complicated in relation to goods that are manufactured or held off-site, where the employer may not have sight or control of them.
To this end, vesting certificates are deployed to give the employer comfort that title to the goods listed in the vesting certificate has been, or will be, transferred to it. Vesting certificates have assumed an increasingly important role, given the recent rise in off-site manufacturing.
In the 2020 case of VVB M&E Group Ltd v Optilan Ltd, the English Technology and Construction Court considered a dispute between a subcontractor, VVB, and its sub-subcontractor, Optilan, on the Crossrail project.
Under the contract between VVB and Optilan, Optilan was responsible for providing telecommunication services, including the procurement and delivery to the site of materials for installation.
The contract contained certain provisions for vesting ownership of goods in VVB before they were delivered to the site. Optilan was to issue vesting certificates to confirm the transfer of ownership.
However, Optilan placed an additional condition on the certificates by stating that the transfer of ownership would occur upon 'receipt of the interim payment' for the goods, and it duly made a claim for the goods.
VVB had a countervailing claim against Optilan's claim for the value of the goods and therefore issued a 'pay less' notice in respect of Optilan's claim. In VVB's view, as set out in the pay less notice, no net amount was due from it to Optilan, but title to the goods had transferred despite the fact that it had not made an actual payment of money for the goods.
Complicating matters, VVB became insolvent. The dispute as to ownership of the goods therefore turned on the construction of the contract and the vesting certificates. The question before the court was whether the transfer of ownership could occur without the 'receipt' of payment as provided in the certificates, given that no further payment was due. In WB view, it had already, in effect, paid for the goods, so title had passed to it.
The court held that, whilst the contract contemplated Optilan being paid for the goods, this did not mean that the transfer of ownership was dependent on Optilan's actual receipt of a sum specified within the vesting certificates. The inclusion of a specified sum was only the first step required in the payment process and could not be read as 'securing' payment of the stated values within them.
Accordingly, the court held that the provision of the pay less notice was sufficient to trigger vesting of the goods. No actual receipt of payment by Optilan was required.
The case highlights the critical role that vesting clauses and certificates play under construction and engineering contracts in determining who owns what. In practice, there is some variety in the details of these clauses.
For instance, the FIDIC Red Book 2017 provides for the transfer of ownership of plant and materials to the employer upon the earlier of delivery to the site or payment for the plant and materials in question.
The FIDIC form differs from the JCT and NEC forms, which expressly contemplate payment being made if materials are delivered off-site. The which contemplate the vesting of ownership of materials, whether on-site or off-site, upon payment of a sum for the materials which is included in an interim certificate.
The NEC4 Core Clause 7 provides for the transfer of ownership of plant and materials to the employer upon delivery to 'working areas'; where plant and materials are outside such areas and are identified in the contract for payment, transfer of ownership happens when the plant and materials are marked by the supervisor. It is the marking of the off-site plant and materials which transfers title, as opposed to payment for them.
Given the differences between these widely used forms of contracts, parties wishing to rely on vesting clauses must give careful consideration as to how vesting certificates, where used, would operate relative to other provisions of the contract.
As is evident, the operation of vesting clauses will often turn on fine distinctions which distinctions highlight the importance of ensuring that vesting clauses clearly reflect the parties' mutual intention as to when title transfers, and that the parties understand when transfer will take place.
In particular, it is important for construction and engineering contracts to be clear as to the act or event which effects the title transfer, whether that be delivery, marking, certification, the actual payment of money or some other matter.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2021 White & Case LLP
