First, the legal essence of an EPC arrangement is the contractor’s commitment to deliver a functioning facility rather than merely performing labour. Accordingly, the contract should define objective completion milestones, testing protocols, and acceptance criteria (e.g., capacity, availability, efficiency, and emissions). Without a disciplined performance-testing regime, disputes often arise over whether underperformance is attributable to design deficiencies, grid conditions, fuel quality, or employer-provided inputs—issues that can undermine the project’s bankability.
Second, power-plant projects are inseparable from public-law constraints, including licensing and permitting processes administered by competent authorities such as EPDK. Therefore, the EPC Kontratı should precisely allocate permitting responsibilities, extension-of-time entitlements, and delay liquidated damages, while maintaining coherent termination rights and security instruments. Finally, given the evidentiary intensity of EPC disputes, arbitration or expert-driven mechanisms are frequently preferred to ensure speed and technical competence.
In conclusion, a well-structured EPC Kontratı in Turkey must integrate private-law performance logic with regulatory realities to reduce conflict and enhance deliverability
Power-plant delivery increasingly relies on integrated contracting models that concentrate engineering, procurement, construction, and commissioning under one legal instrument. In Turkey, EPC Kontratı is not a separately codified contract type; however, it operates as a result-oriented framework shaped primarily by the Turkish Code of Obligations and commercial practice. This essay contends that an effective EPC Kontratı hinges on rigorous risk allocation, measurable performance obligations, and a dispute mechanism suitable for technically complex projects.
First, the legal essence of an EPC arrangement is the contractor’s commitment to deliver a functioning facility rather than merely performing labour. Accordingly, the contract should define objective completion milestones, testing protocols, and acceptance criteria (e.g., capacity, availability, efficiency, and emissions). Without a disciplined performance-testing regime, disputes often arise over whether underperformance is attributable to design deficiencies, grid conditions, fuel quality, or employer-provided inputs—issues that can undermine the project’s bankability.
Second, power-plant projects are inseparable from public-law constraints, including licensing and permitting processes administered by competent authorities such as EPDK. Therefore, the EPC Kontratı should precisely allocate permitting responsibilities, extension-of-time entitlements, and delay liquidated damages, while maintaining coherent termination rights and security instruments. Finally, given the evidentiary intensity of EPC disputes, arbitration or expert-driven mechanisms are frequently preferred to ensure speed and technical competence.
In conclusion, a well-structured EPC Kontratı in Turkey must integrate private-law performance logic with regulatory realities to reduce conflict and enhance deliverability
Yanıt yok