Risk Allocation in Lump-Sum Contracts—Concept of Latent Dispute
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 122, Issue 3
Abstract
This paper presents findings of a pilot study and investigation into construction contracts. The investigation evaluated the effectiveness of written contract language to communicate risk apportionment between contracting parties. This topic is important. Ineffective risk apportionment or the misunderstanding of risk apportionment between contracting parties generally leads to a dispute after the occurrence of a risk event. Contract disputes usually increase project costs and lead to an adversarial contract relationship. A survey was designed to measure perceptions of risk apportionment assigned by construction contract clauses. Perceptions were obtained by asking owners, contractors and consultants to indicate the degree of risk apportionment they perceived as having been assigned between an owner and a contractor by specific contract clauses. Survey results indicated that contracting parties consistently interpret risk apportionment of contract clauses differently. In other words, in terms of how a contract clause assigned risk, the contracting parties seldom interpreted such clauses in the same way.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Abdallah, E. T.(1982). “Guidelines for producing better specifications.”J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 108(3), 438–444.
2.
Ashley, D. B. (1981). “Construction project risks: mitigation and management.”PMI Symp. 1981, Drexel Hill, Pa.
3.
Brogden, E. J. (1984). The contractor's guide to construction law . McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, Toronto, Canada.
4.
Goldsmith, I. (1976). Canadian building contracts . The Carswell Company Limited.
5.
Hartman, F. (1993). “Construction dispute reduction through an improved contracting process in the Canadian context,” PhD thesis, Loughborough Univ. of Technol., Loughborough, U.K.
6.
Hauf, H. D. (1976). Building contracts for design and construction . John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
7.
Ibbs, C. W., and Ashley, D. B.(1987). “Impact of various construction contract clauses.”J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 113(3), 501–521.
8.
MacEwing, J. M. (1991). “Construction contracts and the real world.”Constr. Canada, (Jan.).
9.
McDonnell, A. D. (1989). “Balancing of risks between owners and contractors in litigation.”Professional responsibility in the construction industry, Insight Press.
10.
National Committee on Tunnelling Technology. (1974). “Better contracting for underground construction.” U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
11.
Purcell, P. F. (n.d.). Dangers of hold harmless and indemnification agreements, legal liability and insurability. C.L.R., 17, 300.
12.
Smith, M. A., and Tucker, R. L. (1984). “Early project problems—assessment of impact and cause.”Project Mgmt. Inst. Sem., PMI, Drexel Hill, Pa.
13.
“Southside Construction Ltd. v. Upbuilding! Non-profit Home, Inc.” (1993). Constr. Law Rep., 2nd Series, 6, 312–320.
14.
“Stipulated price contract.” (1982). Standard Constr. Doc. CCDC2, Can. Constr. Documents Committee, Ottawa, Canada.
15.
Wallace, I. N. D. (1970). Hudson's building and engineering contracts . Sweet & Maxwell, Publishers.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Sep 1, 1996
Published in print: Sep 1996
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.