Deng, X; Ding, S and Tian, Q (2004) Reasons underlying a mandatory high penalty construction contract bonding system. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(1), pp. 67-74. ISSN 0733-9364
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts; economic analysis; public policy; public works |
| Index terms: | public policy, owner, international market, public work, economic analysis, globalization, construction contract, penalty, surety |
| Subjects: | contract type, economic factors, regulatory law, development economics, design analysis, warranties, sociology, infrastructure engineering, public policy |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, International Construction, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Governance, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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