From impartial to acting for the Employer
• 1987 Red Book – the Engineer was expressly impartial.
• 1999 Red Book – impartiality removed; the Engineer acts on behalf of the Employer, but must make a fair determination on claims.
• 2017 Red Book – the Engineer acts for the Employer, except when making determinations, where they must act neutrally and make a fair determination.
Although “impartial,” “fair,” and “neutral” overlap linguistically, their contractual consequences differ. The Engineer’s functional autonomy – not just wording – defines the true legal position.
Why this matters?
The degree of the Engineer’s independence influences whether the Consultant Services Agreement is legally closer to:
- a contract for services (professional autonomy, independent organization of work), or
- a contract of mandate (acting on behalf of and primarily in the interest of the Employer, subject to instructions).
While the White Book structurally resembles a contract for services, extensive Employer control or instruction may shift it toward a mandate relationship.
Key takeaway:
The legal nature of the Consultant Services Agreement cannot be determined in abstract. It depends on:
- the wording of the Red Book used,
- amendments through Particular Conditions, and
- the actual scope of the Engineer’s autonomy in practice.
In FIDIC projects, the Engineer’s role is not just technical – it is structurally decisive for risk allocation, liability, and contractual balance.
More on this by Mina Čogurić, Srdjan Topalović, Lana Vukmirović Mišić can be found here.
This paper is accepted for publishing on the 10th International Conference “Civil Engineering Science and Practice”, GNP 2026 – Budva, Montenegro, 04-07 March 2026.
