McLernon, T (2014) A study of the management of time by comparing and evaluating the provisions for the management of time in the JCT standard building contract (JCT sbc), the new engineering and construction contract (nec3) and the new complex projects contract 2013 (cpc20. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
The aims of this study are to compare the management of time provisions of CPC2013 with those of two analogous construction contracts and to theoretically evaluate and comment on the different contributions made by three construction contracts to the management of time of a construction project. This study used a desk-based approach to analyse the respective provisions of the three contracts to be compared and evaluated. In so doing, the study took account of decided case law that impacts on the legal matters associated with the management of time on construction projects. The findings offer a framework that may be used for the theoretical evaluation and comparison of the provisions for the management of time amongst construction contracts and which may be used for practical evaluation and comparison of the same.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction contract; evaluation; time provision |
| Index terms: | case law, complex project, building contract, JCT, construction project, construction contract |
| Subjects: | contract type, production management, standard forms of contract, legal systems, strategic project management |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Project Management, Procurement |
| 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