Erikson, C A (1979) Risk sharing in construction contracts. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Abstract
(Extract from introduction) Many of the problems in the area of construction process risk assignment arise because the owner traditionally uses exculpatory and hold-harmless clauses to avoid obligations in construction contracts. Doing so, however, may not be in the owner’s best interest since the owner can select the type and provisions of the contract. When contractors are obliged to assume the risk, they include contingency costs for events that often do not actually occur. Litigation resulting from such construction contracts is not only costly and time consuming, but frequently results in decisions favoring the contractor. Owners who are willing to share risk with a contractor in an attempt to obtain smaller contingencies, and thus reduce the expected cost of a construction project, find that no systematic approach has been developed to guide them in the selection of a risk-allocation strategy. The overall objective of this study was to develop an approach to risk allocation in construction contracts and to provide guidance for its implementation. This study was limited to the areas of procurement strategy, selection of contract type and provisions, and administration of construction contracts. The results are applicable to the general types of construction. The viewpoint is that of a large owner who is frequently in the market for new construction.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | market; construction project; contingency; litigation; owner |
| Index terms: | construction project, owner, construction process, strategy, procurement strategy, litigation, risk allocation, construction contract, implementation |
| Subjects: | production management, contractual arrangements, dispute resolution, management, financial risk, building construction, sociology, contract type |
| Topics: | Project Management, Procurement, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Site Management, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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