Doc 2124 N1992

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

Notes on AS 21241992
Notes on the changes in the
General conditions of contract
4th edition (AS 21241992) as
compared with the 3rd edition
(AS 21241986)

Doc 2124 N (1992)

STANDARDS AUSTRALIA

Notes on the changes in the

General conditions of contract 4th edition (AS 2124 1992)
as compared with the 3rd edition (AS 21241986)
Compiled by John Pilley
Construction Industry Engineering Services Group

INTRODUCTION

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

The purpose of these Notes is to indicate the changes of major importance which have been
made in the 1992 edition of the General conditions of contract. Modifications of minor
importance and those merely of an editorial nature have not been listed herein.
Comments have been made on the changes under the following headings:
(a)

Improved clarity.

(b)

Improvements which should increase efficiency of one or more of the parties.

(c)

Changes which meet the particular requirements of the National Public Works Council
(NPWC).

(d)

Changes implementing NO DISPUTE recommendations.

(e)

Changes aimed to reduce or better manage disputes resolution.

(f)

Those changes accommodating more modern contracting practices.

The National Public Works Council/National Building and Construction Council joint
working party report No Dispute Strategies for Improvement in the Australian Building and
Construction Industry (May 1990) was primarily concerned with examining Australian
construction practices with a view to minimizing claims and disputes within the Industry.
Three of the fundamental tenets of NO DISPUTE are
(i)

risk allocation must be correctly dealt with in the Contract especially the Abrahamson
principle that in effect a party who controls a risk should bear that risk should be
observed;

(ii)

clarity of the documents is essential; and

(iii)

improved efficiency with which a project is effected will lead to a lessening of claims
and disputes because the parties are more likely to achieve their contractual objectives.
If efficiency is improved, the Principal will get a better product more quickly and the
Contractor will not be delayed with consequential cost increases, many of which may
not be recoverable and if they are, often only after dispute with the other party.

The current changes made to AS 2124 will result in a set of standard conditions that will
represent a considerable improvement on the 1986 edition. Risk allocation is better identified,
clarity is improved and many of the changes should lead to increased efficiency by all parties,
especially the Contractor.
In the Notes, the basis of reference is the new edition with the previous 1986 edition Clause
number appearing in brackets. For the purpose of these Notes, the terms former and former
Clause are used to refer to requirements of the 1986 edition and Clause or new Clause
are used to refer to requirements of the 1992 edition.

Doc 2124 N (1992)

Where possible, the technical sense of the change has been indicated, but in many cases this
would involve too much detail and it has simply been stated that a change has been made,
the reader being left to compare the old and new versions. In fact, such a comparison is
absolutely essential for a complete grasp of the variations between the two editions as these
Notes are not intended in any way to take the place of a careful and complete review of the
individual Clauses concerned.

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

This document was checked by Mr Brian Farmer of Capital Insight Pty Ltd under contract.

Copyri ght

STANDARDS AUSTRALIA

Users of Standards are reminded that copyri ght subsists in all Standards Australi a publications and software. Except where the
Copyri ght Act all ows and except where provided for below no publi cati ons or software produced by Standards Australi a may be
reproduced, stored in a retr ieval system in any form or tr ansmit ted by any means wit hout prior permission in writ ing from
Standards Australi a. Permission may be condit ional on an appropriate royalt y payment. Requests for permission and information on
commercial soft ware royalti es should be dir ected to the head off ice of Standards Australi a.
Standards Austr alia will permit up to 10 percent of the technical content pages of a Standard to be copied for use
exclusively in-house by purchasers of the Standard without payment of a royalty or advice to Standards Austr alia.
Standards Australi a will also permit the inclusion of it s copyright materi al in computer soft ware programs for no
royalt y payment provided such programs are used exclusively in-house by the creators of the programs.
Care should be taken to ensure that materi al used is from the current edit ion of the Standard and that it is updated whenever the
Standard is amended or revised. The number and date of the Standard should therefore be clearly identif ied.
The use of materi al in print form or in computer soft ware programs to be used commerciall y, with or without payment, or in
commercial contracts is subject to the payment of a royalty. This policy may be vari ed by Standards Austr alia at any ti me.

2 (2)

Doc 2124 N (1992)

INTERPRETATION

The definition of Contract has been included and changes have been made to the definitions
of Date for Practical Completion, Date of Practical Completion, Priced Bill of Quantities,
Separable Portion, Specification and Superintendent.
The definition of Date of Practical Completion and Date for Practical Completion have been
amended to ensure that where a date other than a date certified by the Superintendent in a
Certificate of Practical Completion is the Date of or the Date for Practical Completion,
i.e. where determined by an Arbitrator or a Court under the Dispute Resolution Procedures
then that date so determined by the Arbitrator or Court will be the Date of or Date for
Practical Completion. These changes ensure that there can be no doubt that Northern
Regional Health Authority v Derek Crouch Construction Co Ltd (1984) 1 QB 644 does not
apply to these Conditions of Contract.
Also at the end of Clause 2, a Note has been added to draw attention to the fact that
elsewhere in the document there are definitions specific to a Clause.
The changes to this Clause improve the clarity and certainty over that of the former Clause.

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

4.4 ( ) Errors in Bills of Quantities

A new Clause has been derived from Clause 3.2 of the 1986 edition to provide for errors in
the Bills of Quantities with limits on adjustment for errors.
This deals with Bills of Quantities and has incorporated the National Public Works
Conference Edition 3 (1981) General Conditions of Contract (NPWC.3) concept that minor
errors in Bills of Quantities are to be borne by the Contractor. Previously any error in a bill
of quantities was to be treated as a variation.
The new amendments reduce disputes between Contractors and Principals concerning the
determination by the Superintendent that had to be made under the 1986 edition.
Under the 1986 Edition, the Principal was not constrained by the Superintendents
determination of the valuation but instead the Principal had to make an objective
determination and pay what the Principal believed was a fair value. If the Contractor was
dissatisfied with the amount paid by the Principal, the Contractor had either to dispute the
matter under Clause 46 or allege the Principal had breached the contract and thus have
recourse to the Clause 44 default procedures.
The effect of Clause 4.3 in the 1986 edition (which deals with errors in bills) therefore led
to disputes between the parties because even if a Contractor objected to the determination
made by the Superintendent, it was rare for a Principal to vary the Superintendents
determination and substitute the Principals own determination. Most Principals were not in
a position to do this and in any event had employed the Superintendent to make the objective
assessment as administrator of the Contract.
The new procedure in Clause 4 in the 1992 edition instead follows reasonably closely the
procedure adopted under NPWC.3 and should reduce the incidence of dispute over minor
errors in bills. The effect of the amendments to Clause 4 means that in relation to errors
where the overall value of the error is less than $400.00 there will be no variation but where
the value of the error is more than $400.00 then the Superintendent is required to value the
error as though it were a variation under Clause 40.5.
In effect the parties are agreeing on risk sharing in relation to small errors of less than $400
whilst for errors in excess of that, the parties will be bound by the determination.
This approach

reflects the practical realities for contract administration and, in particular, the NPWC
approach in this area;

will eliminate many insignificant claims that are costly to both parties to the Contract
but which produce no net benefit;
COPYRIGHT

Doc 2124 N (1992)

will reduce disputation; and

reflects the equitable allocation of risk encouraged by NO DISPUTE.

5.5 (5.5)

Recourse to Retention Moneys and Conversion of Security

This Clause has been amended to include the provision of notice prior to a party having
recourse to retention moneys and converting security and also gives the parties the option to
negotiate whether prior notice must be given before a security can be called up under the
Contract.

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

Substantial amendments have been made to Clause 5 and its subclauses, which clarify and
give the parties some flexibility relating to the availability of security and retention moneys
and performance moneys under this Contract.
The Clause provides for a 5 days notice period but the parties may vary this in the
Annexure. The amendment assumes it is fair and reasonable that a party providing security
should be given notice if it is intended that security will be called up, so that if it wishes to
dispute the right of the other party to call up the security it has time to seek an appropriate
legal declaration. It also gives the party the opportunity to rearrange its financial affairs so
to ensure, for instance, its cash flow is not affected by the calling up of the security. The
5 days notice period should not otherwise disadvantage Principals who have the right to call
up security.
This approach

is fair and equitable to the bona fide actions of the contracting parties;
prevents the mischievous actions of parties not entitled to call up security; and
is therefore likely to reduce disputation in this area.

5.6 (5.6)

Substitution of Security for Retention Moneys

The asterisk has been removed.

5.9 (5.9)

Interest on Security and Retention Moneys

This Clause has reversed the order of the 2 Alternatives from the 1986 edition.
Alternative 1 now provides for a joint bank account and that the party who lodges the
security will own the interest on that joint bank account. The 1986 edition provided that the
holder of the security would own the interest.
Alternative 2 provides that where one party is to hold cash retentions etc, then the party
must, except where the moneys are held by a Government department or authority etc, be
held in trust by the party holding same. The holder of the security would own the interest.
The 1986 edition provided that the recipient of the security would own the interest.
This version brings this Contract into line with the Joint Contracts Committee JCC Contract,
which also provides for a joint bank account.
This approach

allows the parties to choose from more equitable options; and

should reduce the level of disputes in this area.

5.10 ( )

Deed of Guarantee, Undertaking and Substitution

This new Clause allows the provision for a Deed of Guarantee, Undertaking and Substitution
to be provided by a corporation and the party where a party is related to or is a subsidiary
of that corporation.
This approach better secures the performance of subsidiary or related companies.

COPYRIGHT

6.2 (6.2)

Doc 2124 N (1992)

Formal Instrument of Agreement

This Clause is different from the former Clause in that the times for the preparation and
execution of the Formal Instrument of Agreement have been reduced. The Principal is also
obliged to bear the cost of any stamp duty on the Contract.
This approach

provides for the more timely execution of a Formal Instrument of Agreement; and

clearly defines responsibility for payment of stamp duty.

8.1 (8.1)

Discrepancies

This Clause has been amended to clarify that both parties and also the Superintendent have
an obligation to notify ambiguities or discrepancies in any documents prepared for the
purpose of executing the work under the Contract. Previously this obligation only applied to
the Contractor. In the interest of improved efficiency on a project, this obligation should
apply to the parties to the Contract and to the Superintendent.

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

This approach

better defines roles and responsibilities; and

should improve project efficiency and reduce the incidence of disputes.

10 (10) SELECTED AND NOMINATED SUBCONTRACTORS

This Clause has been amended from the former Clause in that the practice of the use of
Designated Subcontractors has been deleted and the definition of Nominated Subcontractors
expanded to include prior contracts made between the Principal and the Subcontractors for
Nominated Subcontract Work. Further, Nominated Subcontract Work is limited to works for
which a Provisional Sum has been included in the Contract.
This Clause has been greatly improved by removing the detailed and complicated procedures
dealing with Designated, Selected and Nominated Subcontractors. There will now only be two
types of subcontractor, a Nominated Subcontractor and Selected Subcontractor reflecting
modern contracting practices in the industry.
Principals often specify lists of Selected Subcontractors for the Contractor to choose from in
many instances and this option has been catered for in Clause 10.
The other fundamental change to this Clause is that increased responsibility is now required
to be taken by the Contractor for the performance of a Selected Subcontractor and Nominated
Subcontractor especially where a Nominated Subcontractor defaults. This Clause also reflects
modern practice by providing not only for an assignment of the Nominated Subcontract but
also novation of that Subcontract to the Contractor whereby the Contractor takes over total
responsibility for that Nominated Subcontractor.
This approach

reflects modern contracting practices; and

improves clarity as to the use of Selected and Nominated Subcontractors.

11 (11) PROVISIONAL SUMS

Consequential amendments have been made to this Clause to clarify when provisional sums
will be payable and also to include an additional Clause to clarify when a provisional sum
will be paid when a Nominated Subcontract has been assigned to the Contractor under
Clause 10.
This approach improves the clarity of the former Clause.

COPYRIGHT

Doc 2124 N (1992)

12 (12) LATENT CONDITIONS

This Clause has been amended to make all weather conditions excluded and not just weather
conditions at the site. It was arguable that because the words at the site were included in the
1986 edition, that weather conditions which occurred off site and which caused a latent
condition on site, e.g. seepage, could be a latent condition. The deletion of the words at the
site clarifies that all latent conditions due to weather are exempt from the definition.
This approach

increases clarity of the provision; and therefore

should minimize disputes in this area.

14.3 (14.3)

Notices and Fees

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

This Clause has been amended to provide for the obligations of the parties in the event that
a requirement of a municipal, public or a statutory authority necessitates the provision or
expansion of services in relation to the Works or the Temporary Works.
This clarifies the position where a fee or charge has been imposed or there has been a change
in the amount of the fee, within 14 days prior to the close of tenders, and which necessitates
the provisions or expansion of services of a municipal, public or statutory authority in
relation to the works or temporary works.
It provides that the Contractor will initially pay the fee or charge but will have a right or
reimbursement by the Principal unless the Contract states that the requirement is to be
covered by the Contract price. This Clause therefore constitutes an amendment to aid
interpretation of the document by clarifying which fees and charges are to be included within
the contract price and which are not to be included.
This approach

provides increased clarity and better definition of procedural matters; and

more equitably allocates the risk attached to changes over which the Contractor has no
control.

21.3 (21.3)

Notices from or to the Insurer

This Clause has been amended to provide for the policy of insurance effected under Clause
18 and 19 to provide that the insurer shall notify the other party when the insuring party fails
to renew the relevant policy.
The Clause ensures that Insurance cover necessary for the Works does not lapse without the
other partys knowledge.
This approach

ensures that insurance cover affecting the project or other parties to the project is not
allowed to lapse without prior notice; and

clearly defines responsibilities of the insurer.

21.5 (21.5)

Settlement of Claims

This Clause has been amended to provide for the Contractor to be entitled to settlement
proceeds of an insurance claim where the subject of the claim has not been the subject of a
payment or allowance under the Contract.

COPYRIGHT

Doc 2124 N (1992)

This Clause has been amended to correct a perceived anomaly that existed in the former
Clause. Where the works are damaged or destroyed after the date of the last progress claim
and work has been effected by that Contractor since the last progress claim there was a doubt
in the 1986 edition whether or not the Contractor was entitled to claim and be paid for that
work. This Clause has been amended to make it clear that the Contractor does have the right
to be paid for that work effected by him prior to the date of damage or destruction and
provides a method by which that work is to be valued.
This approach ensures that the Contractor is

paid for work carried out; and

not paid twice for the same work.

21.6 ( )

Cross Liability

This new Clause provides for insurance to be effected by the Contractor to include for cross
liability.

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

This approach

improves clarity of requirements; and

reduces disputes, especially between competing insurance interests.

30.2 ( )

Quality Assurance

This new optional Clause has been included to allow for a quality assurance system to be
included in the Contract if required.
The Clause has been added as a recognition of the importance of Quality Assurance in the
Construction Industry. The Clause includes an explanatory note that Quality Assurance
requirements will require detailed clauses in the Specification or elsewhere in the Contract
which have regard to the quality standard for the work.
This approach

reflects modern contracting practices;

improves clarity; and

improves efficiency if adopted.

31.8 ( )

Access for Testing

This new Clause has been included to entitle the Contractor access to test material or work
during the Defects Liability Period.
This approach

better defines rights and obligations; and

improves clarity of documentation and increases project efficiency.

33.1 (33.1)

Rate of Progress

The third paragraph of this Clause has been amended to clarify the right of the Contractor
to obtain information it requires.
This approach improves clarity over the former Clause.
35.5 (35.5)

Extension of Time for Practical Completion

This Clause has been amended as follows:

(a)

A new second paragraph has been added to require the Principal to notify the
Superintendent if anything which the Principal is obliged to do or provide under the
Contract may be delayed, with a corresponding obligation on the Superintendent to
notify the Contractor of such likely delay. This obligation is currently absent in the
1986 edition.
COPYRIGHT

Doc 2124 N (1992)

10

This approach

(b)

better defines roles and responsibilities;

improves the important flow of information; and

allows for better project planning.

Minor changes have been made to the list of causes for delay which may lead to an
extension of time set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 35.5. In particular an
additional Clause (x) any breach of the Contract by the Principal has been added to
make it clear that a breach by the Principal may give a right to an extension of time.
This approach more clearly defines a consequence of possible actions by the Principal.

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

(c)

An important Clause has been added dealing with concurrent delays. The 1986 edition
was silent on concurrent delays and the interpretation of the document was such that
if any delay beyond the control of the Contractor caused a delay to the Contractor then
(notwithstanding concurrent delay caused by the Contractor) the Contractor was
nevertheless entitled to an extension of time as of right for the period that other cause
of delay delayed the Contractor.
This also had consequential cost ramifications because if one of those concurrent delays
was due to a breach of contract by the Principal, the Principal was liable to pay
damages under Clause 36 notwithstanding the fact that the Contractor may also have
been contributing to the delay. This anomaly has now been corrected and the document
strengthened, especially for Principals (and for Contractors also) as it will encourage
Contractors to ensure that Contractor caused delays are removed as soon as possible.
The Clause now provides that where there is more than one event causing delay and
one of those events is not a cause which might lead to an extension of time, then the
Contractor will not be entitled to an extension of time.
This approach

(d)

should encourage increased efficiency by Contractors;

removes a serious anomaly in the 1986 edition and thereby improves the clarity
of document; and

should greatly minimize disputes in this area.

A specific obligation to minimize delays by the Contractor has been added.

This approach

should encourage Contractors to mitigate the causes of delay and extra costs;
and

encourage better levels of management.

36 (36) DELAY OR DISRUPTION COSTS

This Clause has been amended to provide for the Contractor to be entitled to extra costs for
delay caused by any of the events referred to in Clause 35.5(b)(i) and for the payment of
extra costs for delay or disruption where provided in the Annexure or elsewhere in the
Contract. In addition the asterisk has been removed.
The above amendments concerning concurrent delays have a consequential effect on this
Clause. Arguably the former Clause failed to comply with the Abrahamson principles set out
in NO DISPUTE that a party who controls a risk should bear that risk. Previously this
Clause allowed the parties to negotiate compensation for delay where, for instance, the
Principal caused a delay but that delay was not a breach of contract. Under the Abrahamson
principle quoted, it is arguable that in all instances where a Principal caused a delay, the
Principal should bear the consequences of that delay. For it to be negotiable as the 1986
COPYRIGHT

11

Doc 2124 N (1992)

edition envisaged, was not in accordance with that Abrahamson principle, especially as in
reality it was rarely ever negotiated into the Contract. This anomaly has now been corrected
so that this Clause matches the sentiment of the quoted Abrahamson principle.
Clause 36 now provides that the Contractor as of right has a right to recover extra costs
where a delay is caused by the Principal or its servants and agents including the
Superintendent which entitled the Contractor to an extension of time and that delay does not
constitute a breach of Contract. Extra Cost is the measure of entitlement under the NPWC.3.
The residual right of damages for breach of contract is retained. It has also been made clear
that the Contractor cannot recover delay costs twice, where, for instance, a variation has been
ordered by the Principal and the delay costs have been included in the variation value.

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

This approach

increases efficiency by ensuring that parties minimize their losses as much as possible
and ensure that delays are minimized;

complies with the principles expressed in NO DISPUTE;

increases clarity of the rights and obligations of the parties;

will reduce the incidence of disputes; and

adopts the principles embodied in NPWC.3.

37 (37) DEFECTS LIABILITY

This Clause has been amended to enable the time commencement of the work of rectification
to be included in a direction by the Superintendent and the consequences of a Contractor
failing to comply with a Superintendents direction under that Clause.
This approach

encourages better levels of management by the contractor; and

clearly defines obligations and responsibilities.

38 (38) CLEANING UP
This Clause has been amended to provide for the consequences of a Contractor failing to
comply with its obligations under that Clause.
This approach

encourages increased efficiency by the Contractor; and

clearly defines obligations and responsibilities.

40 (40) VARIATIONS
This Clause has been substantially amended and now enables the Superintendent to require
a Contractor to price proposed variations and for the Principal to reimburse the Contractor
for costs for complying with the Superintendents notice in writing to that effect. Clause 40.5
is also to be amended to provide that the costs of variations are to be ascertained by the
Superintendent.
The re-arrangement of this Clause will improve its clarity. It also removes an anomaly in the
1986 edition that a Contractor could be paid for and receive an extension of time for a
variation which he requested for his convenience in a situation where the Superintendent
failed to exclude time and costs in his approval to the variation. The Clause now reverses this
situation by making it clear the Contractor will not get time or costs unless the
Superintendent specifically permits it.

COPYRIGHT

Doc 2124 N (1992)

12

The Clause should also reduce the incidence of Contractors being used as a free pricing
service and in line with recommendations in Paper No. 8 of NO DISPUTE, should help to
reduce the incidence of variations. This right of reimbursement is more restricted than the
Summary of this Clause above may seem to suggest.
This approach

increases efficiency by lessening the incidence of variations;

improves clarity of contractual and procedural requirements; and

Complies with the intent of Paper No. 8 of NO DISPUTE.

42 (42) CERTIFICATES AND PAYMENTS

This Clause has been substantially amended and now provides, inter alia, for the
Superintendent to certify, in addition to the value of work executed, amounts otherwise due
from one party to the other arising out of or in connection with the Contract and for the
parties to be obliged to pay the amounts certified to be owing by that party to that other.

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

Clause 42.1 clarifies the effect of the decision of Graham Allen Earthmoving Contractors Pty
Ltd v Woodwark Developments Pty Ltd (S.C. of Qld., 19 December 1988 Dowsett. J) which
held, in effect, that despite the wording of Clauses 42.1, 42.2 and 42.10 of the 1986 edition:
(a)

A Principal had to pay the Superintendents Certificate and could not make set offs
against the amount of the Certificate.

(b)

A Principal could not dispute the Certificate.

The 1992 edition now clarifies, subject to Clause 42.10, that the Certificate must be paid, but
the Principal, as well as the Contractor, may dispute it. Clause 42.2 now allows the
Superintendent the right to amend a Progress Certificate where it is incorrect and Clause
42.10 permits a Principal to set off against a Certificate, moneys due by the Contractor
outside the Contract.
It is expected that these amendments will reduce the incidence of disputes caused by
Principals overriding the Superintendents Certificate and paying only the amount the
Principal asserts is due. Further, it permits a Contractor to sue on the Certificate where
payment has not been paid. This brings AS 2124 into line with, for instance, the JCC forms
of contract.
This approach

improves clarity of contractual and procedural requirements;

accords with general conclusions of Paper No. 4 Role of the Parties, (Section 4 the
Superintendent Clauses 4.1, 4.3, 4.7 and 4.8) in NO DISPUTE; and
minimizes disputes concerning the value of work to be paid for.

42.4 (42.4)

Unfixed Plant and Materials

This Clause has been amended to reverse the order of the alternatives as provided in the 1986
edition and to provide for an additional alternative.
This Clause and the last 3 paragraphs of Clause 42.1, provide a wider range of options for
payment for offsite materials than contained in the 1986 edition.
This approach provides greater clarity and flexibility in payment for these items.
42.5 (42.5)

Certificate of Practical Completion

This Clause has been amended to provide for the Superintendent to issue a Certificate of
Practical Completion whether or not the Contractor has made a request for its issue.
This approach accommodates both the approach taken by NPWC.3 and the certification of
physical completion on site.

COPYRIGHT

13

42.8 (42.8)

Doc 2124 N (1992)

Final Certificate

This Clause has been amended to provide for the issue of a Final Certificate rather than a
Final Payment Certificate.
This also represents a fundamental change from the 1986 edition. It is in the interest of all
parties for the contract to have finality subject to the usual exceptions concerning latent
defects, fraud etc. This also brings AS 2124 into line with NPWC.3 and JCC forms of
contract.
This approach

provides for finality in payments due under the Contract, and in completion of the
works;

will require the parties to finalize outstanding matters at an earlier date that has been
past practice; and

will encourage better contract administration.

42.10 (42.10)

Set Offs by the Principal

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

This Clause has been amended to provide for the independent right of set off by the Principal
to apply only to moneys due from the Contractor to the Principal outside the Contract.
This approach complements the requirement of Clause 42.1 that, in respect of the Contract,
the Superintendents Certificate must be paid.
42.11 (42.11)

Recourse for Unpaid Moneys

This Clause has been inserted to provide for either party to have recourse to retention moneys
and/or convert security in the event of the non-payment of an amount due and payable under
the Contract.
This Clause also clarifies the right to have access to security under Clause 5.5.
This approach improves clarity of contractual and procedural requirements.
43 (43) PAYMENT OF WORKERS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
This Clause has been significantly amended to now also require the provision by the
Contractor of a statutory declaration as to the payment of subcontractors.
This change makes it mandatory for a statutory declaration to be provided in respect of
payment to subcontractors and should assist the efficiency of a project overall in that
Subcontractors will be afforded greater security of payment than existed under the previous
edition.
This approach should ensure the due performance of roles and responsibilities under the
Contract.
44.2 (44.2)

Default by the Contractor

This Clause has been amended to provide for additional substantial breaches of Contract
under Clauses 42.2(f) and (g).
This approach better defines roles and responsibilities under the Contract.
46 ( ) NOTIFICATION OF CLAIMS
A new Clause has been included to provide that the Contractor must serve, within specified
times, a prescribed notice in the event of a breach of the Contract by the Principal or for any
extra cost or expense arising out of or in connection with any direction of the Superintendent.
This Clause represents a considerable improvement on the previous edition which for all
intents and purposes failed to require the Contractor to progressively advise of particular
types of claims so as to give the Principal the opportunity to take corrective action or
COPYRIGHT

Doc 2124 N (1992)

14

otherwise mitigate the extent of such claim. NO DISPUTE advocated early notification of
claims as desirable and necessary to avoid disputes. The new barring clause reflects
Principals concerns to be advised of claims as soon as possible and represents a fair balance
between the right of Principals to be aware of claims and a Contractors right to be paid for
legitimate claims.
A further barring Clause requires the Superintendent is to serve notice on the parties
requiring a party to dispute the Superintendents direction within a specified time if either
party wishes to do so.
This approach

improves clarity of contractual and procedural requirements; and

should improve project efficiency.

47 (46) DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

This Clause has been substantially amended to allow for other means of dispute resolution
before referring disputes to arbitration or litigation.
As before, if the Contract fails to state in the Annexure which alternative applies (or the
prepared alternative is not otherwise shown in the Contract) the first alternative will be
applicable (see Clause 1).
NO DISPUTE recommended that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures should
be facilitated in the dispute resolution process. The new Clauses permit ADR to be
considered by the parties before formal proceedings by way of arbitration or litigation can
be taken. It also allows flexibility in the method of formal dispute resolution between
litigation (this is favoured in some States) and arbitration (preferred in others). The Clause
also accommodates the NPWC.3 approach of the dispute being dealt with initially by the
Superintendent.
This approach

provides greater clarity and flexibility than existed under the 1986 edition;

facilitates the use of ADR procedures if so desired by the parties; and

accommodates the NPWC.3 approach of initial formal consideration by the

Superintendent.

48 ( ) WAIVER OF CONDITIONS
A new Clause has been included to accommodate some Principals requirements.
This approach gives some Principals contract administration options beneficial to both parties
not otherwise available to those Principals.

COPYRIGHT

Accessed by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 18 Apr 2015 (Document currency not guaranteed when printed)

This page has been left intentionally blank.