Hinze, J and Couey, J (1989) Weather in construction contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 115(2), pp. 270-283. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The means by which weather is addressed in public works construction contracts were examined through a survey. The agencies included in the study consisted of all state departments of transportation, several district offices of the United States Corps of Engineers, and various supervisor’s offices of the United States Forest Service. The focus of the study was to determine how weather conditions, particularly conditions that could adversely impact construction schedules, are addressed in typical agency contracts. Results show that the practices of the Corps of Engineers and the Forest Service offices are relatively consistent within their own respective agencies, however, major differences are noted between these agencies. Less consistency was observed between the practices of the various state departments of transportation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | survey, public work, United States, construction contract, weather, supervisor, forest, engineer, agency |
| Subjects: | sociology, air quality, contract type, infrastructure engineering, profession, data collection methods, Geography, practitioner, environmental science |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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