Ndekugri, I and McDonnell, B (1999) Differing site conditions risks: A FIDIC/engineering and construction contract comparison. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 6(2), pp. 177-187. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
A new edition of the FIDIC Red Book is under discussion. It is an issue whether this edition should be based on the current edition or there should be a complete break with tradition in favour of a contract based on a new philosophy such as that of the NEC, which is reported to be used in many countries in circumstances in which the Red Book would otherwise have been used. This article compares the two contracts on the way they deal with site conditions issues. The comparison is on equity and clarity in risk allocation, adequacy of contractual procedures for dealing with unforeseeable conditions encountered, effectiveness of contractual machinery for dispute resolution, and compliance with reported new developments in successful contractual practices in underground construction. Studies highlighting the recurring frequency of claims for unforeseen ground conditions suggest a need for such particular attention to this aspect of construction. Although a desire for some equity in risk sharing is discernible in both contracts, there is room for improvement in the clarity of both contracts. Each contract has commendable features which are not present in the other. However, a better approach involves a combination of these features with full compliance of the reported modern developments in successful contracting practices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract; site conditions; dispute; FIDIC; NEC |
| Index terms: | philosophy, compliance, ground condition, dispute, FIDIC, resolution, underground construction, construction contract, effectiveness, risk allocation |
| Subjects: | philosophical studies, conflict resolution, geotechnical engineering, health safety and environment, financial risk, performance management, dispute resolution, contract type, standard forms of contract |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Health and Safety, 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