Kilian, J J and Gibson, G E (2005) Construction litigation for the U.S. Naval facilities engineering command, 1982-2002. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(9), pp. 945-952. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Evaluation of construction claims history can provide an understanding of improvement opportunities in a capital projects portfolio. This study analyzed cases of construction litigation involving the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) for the period of 1982-2002, extracted from the historical trial decision record of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). The study provides trend data for all "first time" construction litigation cases brought before the Board over the last 21 years and a total of 666 cases involving NAVFAC construction contracts were identified over this period. The characterization of these cases was accomplished through a review and tabulation of ASBCA identified "primary" causes and a subjective analysis of "root" causes from a random sample extracted from the total population. The random sample data set totals 30 cases and was taken from cases litigated in the last 10 years (1993-2002). Findings and recommendations based on root causes, including specific recommendations are provided for NAVFAC and practitioners in other organizations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; facilities; litigation; U.S. Navy |
| Index terms: | construction claim, history, population, practitioner, capital project, construction contract, litigation |
| Subjects: | payment, demography, contract type, dispute resolution, practitioner, architectural and construction history, strategic project management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Urban Studies, Legal Issues, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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