As we witness the evolution of the regulatory landscape across the MENA region, it was timely for us to investigate and lift the lid, on what is keeping the region’s legal decision-makers awake at night.
Our first-of-its-kind report titled Legal Leaders in MENA is out now! It captures the views of 700 legal decision-makers across nine countries and 13 industry sectors in MENA, as well as in-depth interviews with experts from key sectors such as financial services and education to name a few, which revealed the emerging risks and priorities challenging the legal sector across the region.
Read the full report and share your feedback with us at email@example.com.Read the full report
As is the case for many sectors, 2020 has been a turbulent one for the construction industry in the region. COVID-19 and the economic fallout, the extent of which is yet to become clear, continues to disrupt the industry in the short term but the impact on 2020 is likely to be felt in the medium and long term.
This article briefly considers some of the short term steps which contractors and sub-contractors can take to manage and mitigate the risks posed by the current situation and considers what the longer-term repercussions, positive and negative, of COVID-19 may be.
In the short term, the key consideration for many in the supply chain will be protecting cash-flow. This is not a new concern in the industry and has been the subject of many articles prior to 2020. Nonetheless, COVID-19 has undoubtedly exacerbated this problem as a result of:
In order to manage this increased risk, more important than ever is to ensure that contracts are pro-actively managed at every level of the supply chain.
Pro-active management of contracts draws out potential issues which may give rise to payment disputes at an early stage. Most construction contracts used in the region, notably the 1987 and 1999 FIDIC suites, contain provisions for the early notification of any instruction or event giving rise to additional cost. All too often these provisions are either ignored or are paid only lip-service which can lead to disagreement as to entitlement to payment and/or the amount due arising long after works have been undertaken.
As part of proactive management of contracts, two further ‘common sense’ steps are vital to being able to support a claim in respect of payment:
Whilst managing the contract may help in bringing issues to light and ensuring compliance with the contract so as to avoid losing the right to claim, this is only part of the story as effective contract management it does not necessarily help in securing payment. Where employers are not prepared to make payments then contractors need to be aware of the potential remedies in their contracts and. at law, seek to use those remedies to secure payments, at least of sufficient amounts to manage cash-flow pending future disputes final resolution.
This is, of course, a difficult balancing act that can be challenging for contractors seeking to balance the need for payment against maintaining commercial relationships with an eye to future opportunities. That said, it is becoming increasingly common, notably amongst larger contractors and consultants, to decide not to seek future opportunities from employers with a history of failing to honour payment commitments.
A contractor’s chief remedy for non-payment, short of termination, is to slow-down performance or suspend the works (or, at least, to threaten to do so in part of in full). Some contracts contain provisions allowing for such slow-down or suspension in the event of non- payment (for example Clause 69.4 of the 1987 FIDIC Red Book Contract). Such contractual rights are beneficial to contractors as there is a clear and unambiguous right to slow- down or suspend in prescribed circumstances (specifically in the event of failures to certify and failures to make a payment). When such rights are invoked, contractors must ensure they have satisfied the preconditions to slow-down performance or suspension (for example notice requirements) and should ensure they have sufficient evidence of the employer’s breach to ensure they are protected from future claims that the slow- down or suspension was not justified. Indeed, the wrongful slow-down or suspension could expose the contractor to significant repressions so it is typical that contractor only take such assertive action in respect of uncontested breaches by the employer (or breaches that the employer is objectively unable to justify).
Where the contract is silent as to suspension, in most jurisdictions in the region the applicable civil code will contain a statutory right to suspend. In the UAE, Article 247 of the UAE Civil Code provides for suspension in certain circumstances:
When exercising a statutory right, care must be taken to ensure that there are performable mutual obligations and that the breach is proportionate to the decision to suspend. Once again, this comes down to the prevailing circumstances, being able to evidence that the contractual pre-conditions to the obligation to make payment have been met (for example submission of supporting documents) and that there is clear evidence of the amount due.
Looking ahead to new contracts, it seems that there is likely to be even more competition for a limited pool of contracts as a result of the economic impact of COVID-19 (although the infrastructure and industrial sectors may well be exceptions) as well as the pre-existing trends in the regional market prior to 2020.
In those circumstances, the risk is that a “lowest-price wins” approach to procurement will dominate and that contractors will be asked to accept ever more risk for ever lower margins. As discussed below, it is hoped that 2020 may provide a ‘reset’ for the industry and lead to a move towards a more balanced risk profile, however, only time will tell if this is likely to happen. In the meantime, it is more important than ever that contractors have a clear understanding of their risk profile and ability to deliver against the same from the early stages of procurement through to delivery of the works.
In negotiating a construction contract, it is common for employers to seek to transfer as much risk as possible to the contractor despite the fact that a contractor may be less well placed to manage that risk. In this regard, we have seen a tendency for pure construction- only contractors being asked to accept full design responsibility. In a commercial environment where procurement decisions are often based on landing the lowest price, contractors are forced to submit a competitive bid, which can result in low profit margins. It follows that that contractor is then even less able to absorb the risk. This is increasingly prevalent in the current market, with contractors being asked by clients to re-price contracts to accommodate the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. The consequences of such pricing are then inevitably passed down the supply chain (although we are aware of various instances when the underlying forms of subcontracts have made no provision for this).
However, and notwithstanding the increasingly competitive nature of the contracting market, contractors should nevertheless ensure that the contract clearly addresses fundamental issues in respect of extension of time entitlements and additional costs (including in respect of the evolving impact of COVID-19), variations, limitations on liability and dispute resolution.
Contractors should ensure that the contract makes provision for the following:
Prior to the unexpected events of 2020, there was discussion in the UAE and the wider region about the future of the market and the need for a more sustainable model to be adopted. Steps have already been taken, for example, the Abu Dhabi government’s decision to impose 30 day payments terms on its contracts, to move towards a more balanced risk profile, but more remains to be done. The 2019 report issued by Mashreq Bank focused on the potential for change in the UAE construction market to create a more sustainable model. It focused on: (a) the introduction of a more balanced risk profile perhaps through the introduction of a standard form of contract or via legislation imposing minimum standards on the industry (b) reviewing dispute resolution procedures, and to ensure that disputes can be resolved more quickly to aid cash-flow (for example through the use of a specialist court or adjudication scheme similar to those used in jurisdictions such as the UK and Australia). Despite the dramatic shift in the current state of the industry and the economic outlook in the immediate future, the issues identified in that report remain front and centre. It is possible that the aftermath of COVID will create greater urgency to move towards a sustainable model for the industry. No matter what level in the supply chain you operate at, it is in no-one’s interest for otherwise viable contractors to be driven out of the market due to cash-flow issues reducing the pool of competitive contractors or for ongoing projects to be threatened by the delays and complications of a contractor or sub-contractor insolvency. If it is the case that public sector contracts and infrastructure works become a bigger proportion of the pipeline of future work in the next few years, COVID may well provide an opportunity for the public sector to expedite change. Through the adoption of new risk-profiles designed to allocate risk to the party best able to manage that risk and through championing prompt payment the public sector can begin to bring about positive changes to the industry which will set it on a more sustainable course for the future.
Of course, the above is speculative and only time will tell how COVID reshapes the construction sector (and indeed the wider economy). What is certain is that in these difficult times it is more important than ever for contractors to ensure they manage contracts and so risk effectively but, at the same time, to actively embrace new opportunities that arise.