Buckingham, P (2007) International process plant contracts for use on other performance-based projects. Construction Management and Economics, 25(7), pp. 709-713. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Selecting a contract that is appropriate for the construction work being carried out is a crucial part of the construction management process. Process plants are performance based, and the industry has developed its own conditions of contract to deal with the particular features and demands of its projects. This paper looks at the basic differences between process plants and traditional building projects, and discusses how these differences influence the conditions of contract. In addition to its suite of English law contracts, the IChemE has recently launched an international lump sum contract that retains the same basic contracting philosophy but is suitable for use on international projects. This paper analyses some of the key changes introduced into this international contract, and suggests that it is suitable for use on a wide range of performance-based projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts; international; performance; process |
| Index terms: | philosophy, international project, construction work, performance-based, traditional building |
| Subjects: | operations management, philosophical studies, performance measurement, strategic management, construction type |
| Topics: | Project Management, Construction Technology, Quality Management, Research Practice, International Construction |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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