CCM FIDIC Certified Contract Manager Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

Under FIDIC 2017, Sub-Clause 8.3 [Programme] introduces a clearer and more structured mechanism for the review and acceptance of the Contractor’s Programme. When the Contractor submits a revised programme, the Engineer (or Employer in the Silver Book) has a defined period—typically 14 days—to review it and issue a Notice of Non-Compliance if the programme does not meet contractual requirements.

If no such notice is issued within this timeframe, the contract provides a “deemed acceptance” (deemed consent) mechanism. This means that the Engineer is considered to have accepted the revised programme, and it becomes the operative Programme for the Works.

Option B correctly reflects this concept. It ensures continuity of project execution and prevents administrative delays caused by inaction. This is aligned with FIDIC 2017’s emphasis on efficiency, proactive management, and avoidance of bottlenecks.

Option D is incorrect because “no objection” is weaker than “deemed consent.” FIDIC explicitly uses the concept of consent, not merely absence of objection. Options A and C contradict the contract’s intent of maintaining workflow.

Thus, the clause ensures that lack of response does not hinder progress, reinforcing disciplined contract administration.

Under FIDIC Red Book and Yellow Book 1999, Sub-Clause 14.3 [Application for Interim Payment Certificates] governs the Contractor’s obligations when submitting statements for interim payments.

Option B is correct because the Statement must include amounts relating to Provisional Sums where applicable. These sums form part of the Contract Price adjustments and must be reflected in interim applications when instructed or executed.

Option C is also correct. Sub-Clause 14.3 explicitly requires that each Statement be accompanied by supporting documents. This includes records of progress and, importantly, the progress report under Sub-Clause 4.21 [Progress Reports], ensuring that the Engineer can properly assess the value of work done.

Option A is incorrect because FIDIC does not mandate submission “in five copies” nor submission directly to the Employer; typically, submissions are made to the Engineer, and the number of copies is not fixed in the General Conditions.

Option D is incorrect as stated. While Plant and Materials may be considered under Sub-Clause 14.5 [Plant and Materials intended for the Works], their inclusion is subject to specific conditions and certification, not simply “added and deducted” generically within every Statement.

Thus, the correct application aligns with procedural compliance, proper substantiation, and inclusion of relevant financial components as per Clause 14.

This statement is false. Acceptance of a revised programme that shows completion within the Time for Completion does not automatically entitle the Contractor to extra payment. The Contractor must demonstrate additional costs arising from the instruction or circumstances to claim payment.

The acceptance of a compliant programme is a scheduling and administrative matter, not a compensation guarantee.

Under FIDIC Red Book 2017, Clause 21 (Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board), particularly Sub-Clause 21.3, provides for the DAAB’s role in dispute avoidance, including informal assistance during site visits. This is a proactive mechanism designed to resolve issues before they escalate into formal disputes.

Key procedural requirements include: (1) both Parties must agree that they want DAAB involvement (Option A), (2) a joint written request must be submitted to the DAAB before assistance is provided (Option C), and (3) both Parties must be present during any informal discussions to ensure transparency and fairness (Option D). These steps ensure neutrality, equal participation, and procedural integrity.

Option B is incorrect and therefore the correct answer to the question. The Engineer has no formal role in authorizing or issuing a “non-objection letter” for DAAB informal assistance. The DAAB operates independently of the Engineer, and its involvement is strictly based on joint agreement between the Employer and Contractor. Introducing Engineer approval would contradict the independence and dispute avoidance function of the DAAB.

Thus, Option B does not belong to the required steps and is not supported by FIDIC provisions.

Under FIDIC Red Book (1999), the Value Engineering Clause requires the Contractor to notify the Engineer with full details and cost implications when proposing Value Engineering changes. The Engineer then follows the Variation procedure in Sub-Clause 3.5 to agree or determine the cost adjustment, which will be reflected in the Contract Price.

This ensures transparent handling of Value Engineering proposals and proper contractual adjustments.

Option D is NOT correct. The DAAB does not act as a witness or provide support during arbitration. Its role is to avoid and adjudicate disputes early during the project lifecycle impartially and fairly, but it does not serve as witness support in arbitration proceedings.

This statement is true. The FIDIC Yellow and Silver Books (2017 editions) include a clear provision that the Works, or the parts designed by the Contractor, must be fit for their ordinary purposes, reflecting the Contractor’s responsibility for design and performance. This introduces an express fitness-for-purpose obligation, which was less explicit in earlier editions.

This provision clarifies risk allocation related to design liability, ensuring that the Contractor is accountable for the fitness of the designed works unless otherwise specified.

Both statements are correct:

Y is right that payment of Delay Damages does not relieve the Contractor from completing the Works.

You are also correct that excessive deduction of Delay Damages can reduce the Contractor’s cash flow, potentially worsening delays.

This situation requires careful balance between enforcing contractual rights and maintaining project progress.

Local procurement laws, regulations, and internal governance rules often apply in addition to or alongside FIDIC contract provisions. Employers, whether public or private, must comply with applicable national or sector-specific rules, which may affect procurement procedures, documentation, and contract award processes.

Option C is correct because procurement requirements depend on local legal systems, the nature of the Employer, and applicable governance.

Option A is incorrect as FIDIC contracts provide contractual frameworks but do not override local legal obligations.

Option B is incorrect because many Employers have procurement policies.

Option D is incorrect since private entities may also be subject to procurement laws or internal policies.

The statement is false. Under FIDIC 2017 editions, the referral of a dispute to the DAAB does not automatically suspend the Parties’ contractual obligations. The works and contract performance generally continue while the dispute is adjudicated, unless otherwise agreed or ordered.

Suspension of obligations can disrupt project progress and is not encouraged by FIDIC procedures, which emphasize dispute resolution without delaying the work.

Option B is correct: The Contractor must obtain approval from the Engineer/Employer before making design changes.

Option C is correct: The Contractor can submit Value Engineering proposals to improve efficiency or reduce costs.

Option A is incorrect; unilateral changes are not allowed.

Option D is incorrect; Value Engineering can be proposed even after initial submission.

Under the FIDIC Silver Book 1999, Clause 9 governs Tests on Completion, while Clause 12.4 addresses Tests after Completion. These provisions define performance verification before and after Taking-Over.

Option A is correct. Under Sub-Clause 9.4 [Failure to Pass Tests on Completion], if the Works fail the Tests on Completion, the Employer has several options, including accepting the Works subject to a reduction in the Contract Price. This reflects the commercial flexibility within FIDIC, allowing completion despite minor deficiencies, with financial adjustment.

Option D is also correct. Under Sub-Clause 12.4 [Failure to Pass Tests after Completion], if the Works fail post-completion performance tests, the Contractor may be required to pay performance damages. Once these damages are paid, the Works may be deemed to have satisfied the required performance levels. This mechanism ensures that operational deficiencies are compensated financially rather than requiring physical rectification in all cases.

Option B is incorrect because both Tests on Completion and Tests after Completion can coexist within the same contract; they serve different purposes (pre-taking-over vs post-taking-over performance verification).

Option C is incorrect because Tests after Completion are generally carried out by or under the responsibility of the Contractor, not solely the Employer, although the Employer may witness them.

These provisions demonstrate FIDIC’s structured approach to quality assurance and risk allocation across different project stages.

Option A is NOT correct because the wording of the Letter of Tender is usually governed by the tender documents and contract terms; it is not solely at the Contractor ' s discretion to dictate when the Contract becomes effective. The standard process is that the Contract becomes effective upon the Employer’s issuance of the Letter of Acceptance.

Options B, C, and D correctly describe standard FIDIC practices.

Under FIDIC Red Book 1999, the Engineer plays a key role in determining claims submitted by the Contractor (Clause 20). If the Engineer fails to make a determination within the prescribed time, the Parties may be unable to resolve the dispute and thus the matter may proceed to dispute resolution mechanisms.

Option B is correct because if the Engineer does not decide, the claim remains unsettled, and the Parties are left to resolve the dispute, often via Dispute Adjudication Board or arbitration.

Option A is incorrect; claims must comply with notice requirements to be valid.

Option C is incorrect because the Engineer may request further particulars but is not obligated to give a final decision on quantum immediately.

Option D is incorrect as the Engineer, not the Employer’s Representative, first responds to claims.

Option E is incorrect since the Engineer’s decision is not final and binding if disputed; it may be challenged.

Under FIDIC Red Book 1999, Sub-Clause 12.3 [Evaluation] governs how the Engineer determines the value of work done. Sub-Clause 12.3(a) sets out conditions under which existing rates and prices in the Contract should be used for valuation, even if the quantity of work changes. It includes criteria such as similarity of work, similar conditions, and that the rate is appropriate.

However, the statement in the question is incorrect because it implies that all four criteria must be satisfied simultaneously before a new rate can be applied. In reality, FIDIC does not require all criteria to be strictly fulfilled in a cumulative manner. Instead, the Engineer exercises professional judgment to determine whether existing rates are appropriate. If they are not appropriate—due to significant changes in quantity, conditions, or nature of work—then new rates or prices may be determined.

Furthermore, Sub-Clause 12.3 provides flexibility and refers to Clause 13 [Variations and Adjustments] where necessary. The valuation process is not rigidly conditional upon all criteria being met but rather guided by fairness and reasonableness.

Therefore, the statement is false because it misinterprets the application of the criteria as absolute and cumulative, whereas FIDIC allows discretion and does not impose such a strict requirement.

Option A is correct: The Engineer is entitled to receive evidence that the Contractor has paid for the necessary insurance policies.

Option C is correct: The Engineer has the role of monitoring the validity of these insurances and ensuring that renewals or extensions are arranged in a timely manner.

Option B is incorrect; the Engineer does not have the authority to take out insurance on behalf of the Contractor.

Option D is incorrect; suspension of construction activities is not automatically the Engineer’s role for insurance lapses but may require instructions from the Employer.

Under FIDIC Red Book 1999, retention is calculated as a percentage (stated in Appendix to Tender) of the value of Works executed and Plant and Materials in accordance with Sub-Clause 14.5 that are on or off Site but intended for incorporation.

Option A is correct: Retention applies to the value of executed works.

Option D is correct: It also applies to Plant and Materials under Sub-Clause 14.5.

Option B is incorrect; advance payments and repayments are not part of retention calculations.

Option C is incorrect; changes due to legislation or costs are not included in retention calculation.

Under FIDIC 2017, Clause 20 introduces a structured and unified claims procedure applicable to both Contractor’s and Employer’s Claims. Claims are categorized broadly into:

Claims for time and/or money (Sub-Clause 20.2), and

Other claims (e.g., disputes or matters under Sub-Clause 20.1(c)).

Option A is correct. The 28-day time bar under Sub-Clause 20.2.1 applies to all claims for time and/or money and is a fundamental procedural requirement. Importantly, unlike FIDIC 1999, this time bar applies equally to both Parties, reinforcing fairness and discipline in claims management.

Option C is also correct. Claims under Sub-Clause 20.1(a) and (b) (typically relating to payment and/or extension of time) are processed under Sub-Clause 20.2, and the Engineer (or Employer’s Representative in the Silver Book) must agree or determine the claim in accordance with Sub-Clause 3.7 (Red/Yellow) or 3.5 (Silver).

Option B is incorrect because claims under 20.1(c) are not handled through Sub-Clause 3.7/3.5 in the same structured determination process as time/money claims.

Option D is incorrect because FIDIC 2017 clearly applies the time bar to both Employer and Contractor claims, which is a key update from earlier editions.

This reflects FIDIC 2017’s emphasis on symmetry, procedural clarity, and proactive claim management.

Under FIDIC Yellow Book 1999, Sub-Clause 5.2 [Contractor’s Documents] requires the Contractor to submit design documents to the Engineer for review. Importantly, the responsibility for planning and coordinating these submissions lies with the Contractor.

The Contractor must ensure that the programme (Clause 8.3) allows sufficient time for the Engineer’s review process, including any resubmissions that may be required if documents are not approved initially. This reflects the design responsibility placed on the Contractor in the Yellow Book, where the Contractor controls both design and execution.

The Engineer’s role is to review and respond within the time stated in the Contract, but the Engineer is not responsible for integrating this review time into the overall project schedule. Similarly, the Employer has no direct role in managing this timing.

From a contract management perspective, failure by the Contractor to allow adequate review time may lead to delays for which the Contractor bears responsibility, as such delays would not typically qualify for Extension of Time unless caused by the Engineer exceeding prescribed review periods.

Thus, proper programming and coordination of document submissions is a key Contractor obligation, making Option A correct.