The FIDIC + AFNOR trap when buying from China

The contract says FIDIC Yellow Book. The Chinese supplier works to GB standards. And nobody reads clause 5.2.

Three contractual gaps we see repeatedly on French-speaking EPC projects involving purchases from China.

1. Equivalence of material certificates (NF EN 10204 type 3.2 versus type 3.1)

The technical specification attached to the contract cites NF EN 10204 type 3.2 for material certificates. The Chinese supplier provides a type 3.1 certificate, signed by its own quality department, and considers it equivalent. It is not.

Type 3.2 requires validation by the purchaser's authorized representative or the inspector designated by regulations, in addition to the manufacturer's inspection representative who is independent of production. Type 3.1 remains an internal manufacturer attestation. This distinction is central during an audit by the Engineer or the end client. At the time of the audit, procurement bears responsibility for the non-conformity, not the supplier.

What we verify before issuing the PO: the purchase specification must explicitly cite NF EN 10204 type 3.2, the supplier must confirm in writing that it has the internal validation chain needed to produce the 3.2 certificate, and the certificate must be audited before the shipment is released.

2. FIDIC clause 4.10 — right of inspection and access to facilities

The traceability obligations under FIDIC clause 4.10 (right to inspect, examine and test) imply unrestricted access for the Engineer to the subcontractor's facilities at any stage of manufacturing.

Most contracts with Chinese workshops omit this clause from the purchase order to the supplier. The operational result: the third-party inspector arrives on site without an enforceable right of access. The supplier can refuse, delay, or restrict the inspection to certain areas of the workshop.

The PO to the Chinese supplier must reproduce clause 4.10 in equivalent terms, in Chinese and English, and it must be countersigned. Without this, the clause in the main contract is not enforceable against the first-tier supplier.

3. Export logistics window and consolidated technical documentation

The execution schedule is aligned with the supplier's FAT delivery. But actual production lead times in China rarely include the 4-to-6-week window needed to arrange export logistics, produce consolidated certificates, and translate the technical documentation into the French used in the main contract.

A schedule slip of 6 to 8 weeks at commissioning. Procurement absorbs the delay, which emerges late and is attributed to the supplier rather than to contractual coordination.

These gaps are not supplier errors

These are procurement coordination gaps between two contractual cultures. The main contract follows FIDIC + AFNOR principles. The Chinese supplier works according to GB principles. The connection is established in the PO and the inspection dossier, not afterwards.

Meritus Technology operates from Shanghai as your procurement representative in China: we review the main contract with you, incorporate the contractual obligations into the purchase order to the supplier, supervise manufacturing, coordinate third-party inspection, and deliver technical documentation that meets FIDIC + AFNOR requirements.

If you manage sourcing from China for a French-speaking EPC project — in North Africa, West Africa, or mainland France — it is worth discussing on a call.