In my previous internship I witnessed a large project being held for a while because of the rise of COVID cases in the area. All meetings and agenda are held and discussed by the client and contracting company and make decisions and deals how they could possibly start it without visiting the site. In "How should Covid-19 clauses be added to a contract?" well firstly it affects the timeline of project and understanding the delays, limited site meetings but concise agenda must be done or more on virtual meeting, and probably required fully vaccinated employees. While in "Should it address vaccines, masks, testing, or symptoms specifically?" employees might do rapid COVID testing before giving a permission that they go on the site/ state. And more importantly following simple restrictions while on the site like wearing mask, having 1 meter distances, and good hygiene practices among your people. "Should the clause be specific to Covid-19 or a general health provision that could be used once the pandemic subsides?" Yes, for safeties, the contract must be clear, the consequences must discussed accordingly, and the budget during the pandemic must be plain. And "Will such clauses be an impediment to getting the work done?" It depends how you will submit to the terms and conditions of the contract sufficiently. I believe they will give you ultimatum, and expect they can turn over the contract, but as long as you can communicate well, then decide if you can stand with it and worth while. I wish you all the best luck in your company.
I'm also adding some documented linked relevant with your questions. Please checked.https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/health/document/X3NNK6S4000000And subject matter like the article below:https://www.clarkslegal.com/Blog/Post/Covid19_clause_extensions_of_time_and_additional_cost_
Contracts may have clauses that refer to "Acts of God" which are meant to indemnify contractors from things beyond their control. Insurance companies use these quite often to limit what they pay out when things get beyond what humans normally control. If the not being vaccinated is the criteria for exposure concern, than your focus is backward, the people under 12 in your household are a cause for concern because they mingle with others under 12 and then potentially pose a threat to anyone entering your house unless you're testing your dependents legal frequently. So maybe one clause you need is an "Acts of God" to cover you and your legal dependents in case they infect someone, not vice versa.I'd say yes remove someone who clearly has symptoms, just bear in mind the vaccine masks more than it reveals. What you will need to do is require actual testing so you're dealing with reality, not supposition. Costs more than masks, but getting the stuff can be lethal.If you have to take legal action against someone, it always helps if you have actually taken some effective measure, like testing, to deal with the situation.W D Bala, PE, SE, MS Safety EngineeringProfessional EngineerHawkins, Texas<o:p></o:p>