FIDIC 건설표준계약에서 계약당사자는 아니지만 때로는 프로젝트 자체의 성패를 좌우하기도 하는 엔지니어라는 중요한 주체가 존재한다. 엔지니어는 발주자의 대리인으로 선임되어 계약상 당사자들로부터 수여받은 권한을 행사하며 계약관리를 주도하는데, FIDIC 조항에서는 엔지니어가 발주자와 시공자 간 이견에 대한 조정인(mediator) 역할을 하도록 되어 있고, 만일 조정이 실패하면 해당 사안에 대해 공정한 결정자(adjudicator)의 역할을 하도록 하고 있다. 문제는 발주자의 대리인이면서 발주자로부터 보수를 지급받는 엔지니어가 과연 ``공정한 결정``을 내릴 수 있느냐이다. 영미법계에서는 이러한 엔지니어의 이중적 역할을 유효하게 인정하고 있으나, 몇몇 대륙법계에서는 그러하지 아니하다. 본고에서는 건설사들이 해외건설프로젝트에서 많이 오인하고 있는 엔지니어의 이중적 역할 및 그 문제점에 대해 FIDIC의 관련 계약조건들을 중심으로 조명하고자 한다. 그리고 국제건설계약의 준거법으로 종종 지정되는 영국법상 엔지니어의 발주자에 대한 책임 및 시공자에 대한 책임부분도 검토한다.

The engineer works for the employer - he is appointed by the employer, he is the prolonged arm of the employer, whilst at the same time playing the role of a third party mediator and/or adjudicator. What we have is a person who is appointed essentially as an agent, but then circumstance arise which require him to stand back, hold the balance between the parties, try to mediate between them and even arrive at a fair decision. He might have to make a decision which goes against the person who appointed him and which is in direct relation to work he himself has done. The engineer is thus a very powerful person which is also referred to as a decision-maker, a function which requires a certain degree of impartiality and fairness from him. Such a concept as the engineer``s dual roles is, however, not familiar to civil law system. A certain civil law jurisdiction invalidates such a weird role of engineer. It is the entity that is discussed in this article. This article comprehensively examines the engineer related clauses under FIDIC construction model forms, including but not limited to the engineer``s duties and powers, delegation of its powers to assistants, the engineer``s instructions, and replacement of the engineer. This article also analyze the engineer``s dual roles under the clause 3.5 of FIDIC in which the engineer is supposed to act as a mediator prior to determining various issues brought by contractor and employer. In addition, this article deals with the engineer``s possible liabilities both to the employer and the contractor. The engineer can obviously be contractually liable to the employer based on terms and conditions of their contract adopted. Further, the engineer might be negligently liable to the contractor as the former has a duty of care owed to the latter in the course of its performances. The engineer is liable to the contractor not only for breach of warranty of authority but a fraudulent misrepresentation upon which the contractor has relied and thereby suffered damage, and the engineer is liable to the contractor for any refusal to certify or incorrect certification which is fraudulent and collusive or corrupt. Lastly, in the event the contractor has a possible cause of action in tort against the engineer, this article covers the issues of which court has a jurisdiction and which law should be applicable.