Perry, J G (1995) The New Engineering Contract: Principles of design and risk allocation. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2(3), pp. 197-208. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The paper begins with a brief history of the New Engineering Contract (NEC) and outlines the response by the NEC Panel to the proposals made in the Latham Report. The main principles adopted for the design of the contract are described and the main procedures which are used to implement the design principles are outlined. Emphasis is given to the way in which the procedures are intended to stimulate good management of contracts. The final section of the paper deals with risk allocation and management in NEC. The way in which the choice of contract strategy influences risk allocation is considered first and this is followed by a discussion of the principles used for the detailed allocation of risks in NEC. Risks which are carried by the employer are described and assessed through a novel procedure in NEC.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract strategy; New Engineering Contract; risk management |
| Index terms: | risk management, design principle, proposal, risk allocation, contract strategy, history, New Engineering Contract, Latham |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, design methods, project planning, industry policy reports, architectural and construction history, financial risk, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Risk Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Governance, Procurement, Cost Management |
| 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