Managing Unforeseen Site Conditions

Halligan, David W.; Hester, Weston T.; Thomas, H. Randolph

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1987)113:2(273)

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers have reported the importance of early dispute resolution. Halligan et al . (1987) found that equitable contract administrative procedures which encouraged the early and prompt resolution of claims represented one of the most important ways to reduce costs and reduce the impact of claims on the overall project.…”

Section: Critical Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study in Hong Kong by Kumaraswamy (1997), aimed at identifying root causes of claims for extensions of time and extra payments on construction projects, found that unforeseen ground conditions were ranked fourth in the ‘top ten’ common categories of construction claims as perceived by contractors, owners and consultants. In America, studies by Halligan et al (1987) on Federal Highway Administration funded state highway construction projects indicated that, whereas claims for ground conditions accounted for only 20% of all claims when categorized by root cause, they were responsible for approximately 35% of the total dollar amount paid to contractors for claims.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differing site conditions risks: a FIDIC/engineering and construction contract comparison

Mcdonnell

1999

Eng Const Arch Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Critical Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differing site conditions risks: a FIDIC/engineering and construction contract comparison

Mcdonnell

1999

Eng Const Arch Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have reported the importance of early dispute resolution. Halligan et al (1987) found that equitable contract administrative procedures which encouraged the early and prompt resolution of claims represented one of the most important ways to reduce costs and reduce the impact of claims on the overall project. Their studies on state highway projects and Air Force construction projects indicated that employers who resolved claims as they arose had an average of a 50% reduction in the severity of both time and cost overruns when compared with employers who resolved claims at the end of the project.…”

Section: Dispute Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differing site conditions risks: a FIDIC/engineering and construction contract comparison

Mcdonnell

1999

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.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.

show abstract

“…(Ibbs and Ashley, 1987) and (Haidar, 2011) discussed the impact of each of the principles of risk allocation between the owner and the contractor and the incentives for project success indicators: cost, time, quality, safety, employer satisfaction, and contractor satisfaction. (Halligan et al, 1987) explained that the drafting of the construction contract does not control the actual cost of the projects borne by both the employer and the contractor, because the methods used to manage the soil problems are the ones that control the cost, and they proposed two methods for dealing with soil problems: 1) That the contractor be submitted within the tender documents, a report explaining the soil condition, 2) Prompt settlement of claims (during project implementation) related to any differences from the delivered report for the contractor.…”

Section: Introcductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of AIA and FIDIC Construction Contracts with an equivalent Egyptian contract

Bayomi

Eldosouky²

2022

Journal of Engineering Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Precisely drafting the infrastructure construction contract is a way to ensure the success and continuity of the project without any complications, and through which the rights and duties of each party involved in the project are determined. International standard contract conditions such as FIDIC and AIA contribute significantly to reducing disputes between the parties; yet, due to the absence of a standard construction contract in Egypt, the infrastructure construction industry became more complicated in recent years and contractual commitments are often not carried out in a good faith. This research aims to highlight the major causes of contractual conflicts that may be addressed in infrastructure construction projects and to compare and analyze the Egyptian Construction Contract (ECC), International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), and American Institute of Architects (AIA) construction contracts for the clauses that cause disputes in the Egyptian infrastructure construction contract in order to improve, develop, and enhance the ECC as well as overcome the obstacles that hinder the development of infrastructure construction projects, leading to an increase in the chances of achieving basic project success indicators (cost, time, quality, and safety).

show abstract

Managing Unforeseen Site Conditions

Cited by 21 publications

References 3 publications

Differing site conditions risks: a FIDIC/engineering and construction contract comparison

Differing site conditions risks: a FIDIC/engineering and construction contract comparison

Differing site conditions risks: a FIDIC/engineering and construction contract comparison

Comparison of AIA and FIDIC Construction Contracts with an equivalent Egyptian contract

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About