Hymes, S J (2011) Front-end specifications and construction claims. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 164(3), pp. 139-146. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
A survey of 150 construction professionals in the United States of America documented that commonly encountered front-end specifications (also known as general conditions) lead to construction claims and disputes as frequently as defective drawings, deficient technical specifications and jurisdictional disputes. Claims and disputes from scheduling, coordination and scope of work have the greatest potential impact to a project. Although this result was not unexpected, what proved surprising was how these individuals viewed the complexity of those same specifications. Implications and suggestions for utilising the results of this study are provided as well as additional research possibilities.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts & law; disputes & arbitration; project |
| Index terms: | arbitration, coordination, construction professional, dispute, United States of America, complexity, construction claim, survey, drawing, specification, scheduling |
| Subjects: | technical documentation, dispute resolution, data collection methods, systems engineering, payment, professional development, contractual condition, management, operations research, Geography |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Information Management, Organizational Design, Time Control, Contract Administration, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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