Kehinde, J O and Aiyetan, O A (2002) A study of the nature of contractual claims in building contracts in Nigeria. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 7(3), pp. 197-202. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Building contracts are rarely completed without one form of claim or another. This study investigated the nature of contractual claims in building contracts to enhance better understanding of claims in contract administration. Data for the analysis was obtained from a total of 52 project files of completed building contracts to determine the categorization and nature of contractual claims. In addition, two sets of questionnaires were administered to consultants/contractors (a total of 39 responses were received out of 50 questionnaire), to assess the causes/ground for making contractual claims and the expected magnitude. The result showed that contractual claims vary in nature depending on the size and type of project as well as the client, which are highly variable elements in building contract. This makes the prediction of expected claim difficult, though the study showed that a positive correlation coefficient of 0.649 exists between claims and the initial contract sum and a coefficient of determination r2 = 0.42. Variations and additional works constitute the highest source of contractual claims in most building contracts. The study concluded that most claim situations are attributable to poor/inadequate pre-contract planning which results in changes and delay in construction works. Therefore, it is recommended that adequate time and effort should be exerted to ensure a comprehensive design and contract documentation to reduce claims.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractual claims, building contract, questionnaire survey, contingency sum, Nigeria |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, variation, contract documentation, survey, construction work, building contract, contract administration, Nigeria |
| Subjects: | contract type, operations management, contractual arrangements, contract management, Geography, data collection methods, contractual condition |
| Topics: | Project Management, Geographical Context, Procurement, Contract Administration, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PEA |
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