The administration of the 'botched' FIDIC contract: the problems arising out of the administration of a wrongly 'slanted' contract for turnkey projects

Day, K D (1989) The administration of the 'botched' FIDIC contract: the problems arising out of the administration of a wrongly 'slanted' contract for turnkey projects. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, UK.

Abstract

Contracts used in the building industry have undergone severely radical changes in concept and scope over the last ten, or so, years. For example, the norm was, until quite recently, for the Architect not only to be the principal designer of "the Works", the subject of a development, but additionally, the supervisor of the construction process as well. Today, however, forms of contract are currently in use where the Architect merely prepares an outline conceptual design which is then passed over to a contractor for him to develop and then build, viz a "design and build" contract, or where he is not the person responsible for supervising the design development coordination and named in the Contract for the purposes of supervising the construction process. Careful drafting is required in the production of any building contract, given that such contracts tend to be characteristically dynamic in nature (essentially a tendency to open-endedness) due, almost always, to incompleteness of the design, client changes of the design, or response to interface incompatibility, or site conditions which can affect the design, the programme and cost. Drafting problems, and related difficulties in the administration of the Contract, become that much more acute in the circumstances, where a contract, slanted (in terms of drafting) to provide the requisite directions to achieve a specific given end, are re-slanted to provide an entirely different end. Problems arising from such Contracts have arisen in the case of the International Civil Engineering Works Contract (FIDIC) where it has been transformed ("botched") from a contract for lateral - civil engineering - works, designed and supervised by an Engineer to one required to meet the needs of a vertical structure, which is "designed, built and fitted-out" by a Contractor (a turnkey contract) where the Engineer is required to supervise (not design) those Works. The present thesis is concerned with a discussion of problems related to the open-endedness of building contracts, in the context of "Botched" FIDIC contracts: which, in the event, have become virtually unmanageable (from an administrative point-of-view) and the generic FIDIC "slant" has all but destroyed the efficacy of turnkey design and build contracts.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Uncontrolled Keywords: building contract; building industry; civil engineering; coordination; drafting; FIDIC; civil engineer; client; designer
Index terms: coordination, supervisor, design development, form of contract, architect, turnkey project, drafting, building industry, designer, engineer, FIDIC, building contract, design and build, conceptual design, construction process, programme, civil engineer
Subjects: technical documentation, contractual arrangements, profession, standard forms of contract, contract type, practitioner, project controls, building construction, industry analysis, design practice, management, design process
Topics: Design Practice, Organizational Design, Site Management, Time Control, Research Practice, Procurement, Roles and Professions
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