Hartman, F and Snelgrove, P (1996) Risk allocation in lump-sum contracts: concept of latent dispute. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(3), pp. 291-296. ISSN 0733-9364
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction contract, investigation, effectiveness, risk allocation, dispute, owner, contracting party, survey, project cost, risk apportionment |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, practitioner, contract type, data collection methods, sociology, financial risk, economics, performance management |
| Topics: | Procurement, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Quality Management, 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