Greenwood, D; Hogg, K and Kan, S (2005) Subcontractors' liability for project delay. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 10(2), pp. 107-114. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
The normal way of dealing with damages for delay in a construction contract is to use a Liquidated and Ascertained Damages clause. Such clauses specify a preset sum to be due to the client for every day, week or month by which the contractor fails to meet the works completion date. However, the greater part of the value of construction work is actually carried out by subcontractors, and there is little or no published evidence as to how their contractual responsibilities for delays are determined and pursued. Theoretically, there are a number of possibilities (none of which is entirely satisfactory to both parties) and the logic and implications of each is discussed. A survey was conducted to discover the methods that are actually used, their incidence, and whether it was possible to relate the different approaches to the attributes of particular subcontractors or to specific situations. The most commonly encountered approach was for subcontract damages to be based upon a proportion of those set under the main contract. Interestingly, this is neither the approach incorporated within industry-standard subcontract conditions, nor is it the one preferred by subcontractors. Furthermore, this method places considerable risks on the main contractor due to the possibilities of under-recovery and the creation of secondary risks. This method, indeed all the methods that were encountered, seems to be the result of a rather uneasy compromise between the parties, the outcome of which may be related to their relative bargaining power.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bargaining power; delay; liability; liquidated damages; subcontracts |
| Index terms: | evidence, subcontractor, project delay, subcontract, liability, damages, liquidated damages, survey, bargaining, construction work, construction contract, main contractor, recovery |
| Subjects: | economics, contractual remedy, project controls, liability law, contract type, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, practitioner, dispute resolution, operations management |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Supply Chain Management, Contract Administration, Time Control, Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| 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