Reasons Underlying a Mandatory High Penalty Construction Contract Bonding System
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 130, Issue 1
Abstract
Mandatory high penalty conditional bond in public works features the current U.S. construction contract bonding system, which is unique to the low penalty unconditional bond, a more popular choice on the international market. The diversity of construction contract bonding practices puzzles many transitional economies in their globalization processes, when they are to establish or reform their construction contract bonding system. Based on the research into surety bonding mechanisms, this paper illustrates that the penalty requirement is a controlling factor, and that only high penalty conditional bond and low penalty unconditional bond can bring a state of equilibrium to the market. The conditional bond is fairer, and a high penalty conditional bond is a more functional choice than the low penalty unconditional bond. However, lack of enough demand and experienced sureties hampers the application of high penalty condition bonds. Being the nominal owner of public works, the government can always save its money from construction contract bonding system and start up the demands. Therefore, a mandatory surety bonding system in public works with a high penalty requirement should be a good public policy choice for the government.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Eaglestone, F. N., and Smyth, C. (1985). Insurance under the ICE contract, Godwin, London.
Encyclopedia Britannica. (2001). “Guaranty and Suretyship.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 〈http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=39097& tocid=0&query=suretyship〉
He, B., ed. (1999). International project contract and contract manage-ment, China Construction Industry, Beijing.
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). (1978). ICC uniform rules for contract guarantees, Publ. No. 325, International Chamber of Commerce. Paris.
International Chamber of Comerce (ICC). (1997). Guide to ICC uniform rules for contract bonds and model forms, Publ. No. 536, International Chamber of Commerce. Paris.
Marsh, P. (1994). “Bonds and guarantees.” Purchasing and supply management, Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, Easton-on-the-Hill, U.K.
Russell, J. S. (2000). Surety bonds for construction contracts, ASCE, Reston, Va., 5, 103, 188–189.
Schubert, L. M. (2000). “Why obligees buy bonds.” The law of suretyship, 2nd Ed., E. G. Gallagher, ed., American Bar Association, Chicago, 41.
Task Group on Contract Bonds. (2001). Working Group on ALTs convened on 3 July. 〈http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/construction/alo/bonds/ondsfin.htm〉
U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). “Historical C30 value of construction put in place data.” 〈www.census.gov〉
Wilson, H. W.(1999). “125 years of innovations.” ENR, 243(16), 27.
Winston, S., and Ichniowski, T.(1999). “Procurement: Miller Act reforms approved by House.” ENR, 243(6), 11.
Woods, W. H. (2000). “Historical development of suretyship from prehistoric custom to a century’s experience with the compensated corporate surety.” The Law of Suretyship, 2nd Ed., E. G. Gallagher, ed., American Bar Association, Chicago, 3–40.
World Bank. (1995). Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD loans and IDA credits, 5th Ed., The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 130 • Issue 1 • February 2004
Pages: 67 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 16, 2002
Accepted: Nov 7, 2002
Published online: Jan 16, 2004
Published in print: Feb 2004
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.