Hughes, W P and Shinoda, H (1999) Achieving satisfactory contractual terms for the engineer's role. In: Hughes, W P (ed.) Proceedings of 15th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September 1999, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
An international survey of clients, consultants and contractors produced wide-ranging data on the views of users of the FIDIC form of contract. The purpose of the survey was to elicit views on a range of issues, prior to revising the model form, to ensure that the contract drafters produce a form that is satisfactory for its users. Those questions that focus upon the role of the engineer have been subjected to detailed statistical analysis. The analysis shows that, contrary to popular belief, the views of contract users from common law jurisdictions do not differ from those in civil code jurisdictions. The engineer’s role is not generally perceived as neutral in the contractual relationships between clients and contractors. Contractors would prefer someone other than the engineer to be the first-line settler of disputes in contracts.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts; engineer; law; project management; survey |
| Index terms: | survey, contractual relationship, international survey, jurisdiction, project management, form of contract, contractual term, engineer, FIDIC, dispute, statistical analysis |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, dispute resolution, data science, legal systems, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, research products and data, contractual relationship, standard forms of contract, contract structure, profession |
| Topics: | Project Management, Procurement, Contract Administration, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here