Lal, H (2013) Nuclear decommissioning contracts: The legal and commercial issues. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 166(2), pp. 94-102. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
A fundamental aspect of the UK Programme of Decommissioning and Waste Management is the desire of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to achieve more for less. This requires the use of 'incentives' and target-cost arrangements. This paper examines the role and use of the NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract and the Institution of Chemical Engineers Burgundy-Book conditions of contract. Questions are now arising about how incentives-based contracts/target-cost contracts actually work in practice. How do they provide an incentive and allocate the risk of cost/time overrun? What are the problems that are leading to disputes? These questions are addressed, as well as exploring the specific areas that contracting parties should now consider before signing up to an incentives-based or target-cost contract. The paper concludes by examining the desire in the industry to use 'hybrid contracts' that incorporate elements of fixed price, or longer-term target plus fee (for workstreams or sites where analysis of risks is required or where work needs to be better understood and characterised).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts & law; nuclear power; management |
| Index terms: | nuclear power, programme, decommissioning, contracting party, time overrun, engineer, construction contract, waste management, dispute |
| Subjects: | project controls, waste management, dispute resolution, profession, renovation and retrofit, energy systems, practitioner, contract type |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Time Control, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Sustainability, Legal Issues |
| 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