COMPARING AND EVALUATING THE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS OF TWO ANALOGOUS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF COST.

Tim McLernon, Sharon McClements

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

267 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, on its website, defines cost management as being ‘concerned with delivering best value in building and infrastructure’. The contract used between the parties for the construction project has a significant influence on the management techniques and procedures used for post-contract cost control and management. Standard forms of construction contract dictate in detail, expressly and impliedly, the management techniques and procedures to be used for post-contract cost control and management. The aims of this study are to compare the cost management provisions of comparable JCT and NEC3 contracts and to evaluate the different contributions made by the two construction contracts to the management of cost of a construction project. This study will use a desk-based approach to analyse the respective provisions of the two contracts to be compared and evaluated. In so doing, the study will take account of case law that impacts on the legal matters associated with the management of cost on construction projects. The findings will offer a framework that may be used for the evaluation and comparison of the provisions for the management of cost amongst construction contracts and which may be used for practical evaluation and comparison of the same.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationUnknown Host Publication
PublisherRoyal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Pages1-9
Number of pages9
Publication statusPublished - 16 Sep 2015
EventCOBRA 2015 - Sydney, Australia
Duration: 16 Sep 2015 → …

Conference

ConferenceCOBRA 2015
Period16/09/15 → …

Bibliographical note

Reference text: Broome, J. (2012). NEC3: a users guide, ICE, London
EC Harris (2012)
http://www.echarris.com/pdf/EC%20Harris%20Construction%20Disputes%202013.pdf
Egan, J., (1998) Rethinking Construction: The report of the Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the scope of improving the quality and efficiency of the UK construction industry, London, Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions.
Hudson (2014) Hudson Building and Engineering Contracts, 12th Edition Sweet & Maxwell, London.
Keating (2013) Keating on Building Contracts, 9th Edition with 1st supplement, Sweet & Maxwell, London
Latham, M (1994) “Constructing the team: Final report of the Government/ Industry review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the UK construction industry”, London, HMSONBS National Construction Contracts and Law Survey (2012); available at http://www.thenbs.com/topics/contractslaw/articles/nbsNationalConstructionContractsLawSurvey2012.asp ), accessed December 2014.
Northern Ireland Housing Executive v Healthy Buildings (Ireland) limited (2014) NICA 27
Pinsent Mason (2011) Standard Form Contracts: NEC, [online]. Available at: http://www.out-law.com/en/topics/projects--construction/construction-standard-form-contracts/standard-form-contracts-nec/ [Accessed 14th October, 2013].
Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd (1970) 1 B.L.R. 111].
Sutcliffe v Thackrah [1974] AC 727

Keywords

  • Evaluation
  • comparison
  • cost provisions
  • management
  • construction contracts.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'COMPARING AND EVALUATING THE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS OF TWO ANALOGOUS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF COST.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this