Hutcheson, John M (1979) Administration of building contracts with particular reference to the builder's financial control. PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
The aim of this research was to investigate the administration of building contracts with particular reference to the builder's financial control, and thereby develop a flow chart together with those factors which are essential for the financial control of major building contracts. Particular attention was paid to those aspects of administration which are effective in averting increased costs, in particular when one or more of the parties to the contract has a financial crisis, such as being placed in receivership. The method used in the research was to develop a standard flow chart for the administration of building contracts, which flow chart illustrated the builder's system of financial control. This flow chart was then tested against the case studies of two contracts which were contrasts in cost, location and design viz. The Islander Hotel in Port Moresby and the QANTAS Centre in Sydney. Then, other case studies of building contracts in Sydney were used as a check on the foregoing tests. To further develop the aim of the research an examination was made of the trend of methods by which a contractor may evaluate his own liquidity and profitability as well as the financial viability of other parties to a contract. These methods of evaluation were then compared with those used in the actual administration of the contracts for the construction of the Islander Hotel and the QANTAS Centre, together with the five other case studies. At this stage of the research it was apparent that the flow chart developed as "The Standard Administrative System of Building Contracts" is viable but that there are occasions when some variations are required to optimise the builder's financial control of particular contracts. In addition, other factors, had been developed in the research to be used by the builder for the financial control of his contracts, in particular to maximise his profits and liquidity. With a view to verifying the research, a questionnaire was sent to a sample of building contractors. The questionnaire sought confirmation of the flow chart as well as the use made of techniques to evaluate clients and subcontractors as well as the contractors' control of their own profitability and liquidity. There was a strong correlation between the results of the survey and the hypothesis developed from the literary research and the seven case studies. Hence, the conclusions of the thesis present a flow chart which is able to be used as a model of "The Administrative System for Building Contracts". In addition, the conclusions summarise those factors which are critical for the financial control of building contracts.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building contract; financial control; variations; builder; building contractor; client; subcontractor; case studies; liquidity |
| Index terms: | profitability, hotel, building contract, building contractor, case study, liquidity, financial viability, questionnaire, variation, subcontractor, profit, builder, survey, financial control |
| Subjects: | contractual condition, contract type, data collection methods, construction type, practitioner, economic analysis, business management |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Construction Technology |
| 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