Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractProvisions of JCT standard form on variations, including variations allowed, challenging variations and general scheme for valuation of variations, giving guidance on practical implications and how to deal with potential pitfalls.
CitationConstruction Law Journal, 18(4): 310-333
PublisherSweet & Maxwell
JournalConstruction Law Journal
CollectionsConstruction and Infrastructure
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Factors Influencing Contractor Performance: An International InvestigationXiao, Hong; Proverbs, David G. (Emerald Publishing Group Ltd., 2003)International comparisons of contractor performance can provide robust benchmarks for contractors in different countries and help to identify ways towards performance improvement. Based on a hypothetical construction project, overall contractor performance (OCP) in Japan, the UK and the USA is compared. Overall contractor performance is defined to embrace construction cost, construction time, construction quality and sustainable development, the philosophy being that the achievement of one aspect of performance should not be at the expense of another. Multiple regression analysis reveals that overall contractor performance is dependent on: their past performance on previous similar projects; their commitment towards lifetime employment; their perceived importance of time performance; their relationship with subcontractors; and the number of design variations during construction. To improve their overall performance, contractors are advised to focus on construction time, reduce delays, maintain a stable workforce and establish partnerships with their subcontractors. Clients should attempt to reduce design variations during construction. (Emerald Group Publishing Limited)
CONBPS - an Expert System to Improve the Efficiency of the Construction ProcessPoon, Joanna; Potts, Keith F.; Musgrove, Peter (RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors), 2003)The aim of the research outlined in this paper is to develop a best practice process model for building projects based on the use of an expert system. The CONstruction Best Practice System (CONBPS) focusses on projects which are based on the traditional procurement strategy, using the JCT 80 standard form of contract. The model clearly identifies the sequence of construction activities. It also identifies the roles and responsibilities of the major parties on the building team and the issues within the project cycle, which can prove critical to project success. The system incorporates many user-friendly functions, including the provision of multi-choice icons and the provision of an on-line help function. Besides, it also provides interim and final reports which are used to advise the participants on the success factors that they have ignored and to which aspects they should pay more attention. A framework was initially developed focussing on the whole design process with a full knowledge-based system developed for the Inception Stage. CONBPS can be used as a teaching/learning tool to assist teachers and students to better understand the construction process. Also, it could prove useful to project managers and all the participants in the construction process.
Insolvency and resolution of construction contract disputes by adjudication in the UK construction industryNdekugri, Issaka E.; Russell, Victoria (Taylor & Francis, 2005)The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 provides that a party to a construction contract has a right, at any time, to refer any dispute under the contract for adjudication. This resolution method requires a neutral third party, the adjudicator, to determine the dispute within 28 days after receipt of the referral regardless of the complexity of the issues in dispute. The decision is to be implemented even if it is palpably wrong in fact or law. A key assumption of this legislation is that any mistakes made by an adjudicator can be corrected by reference of the same to litigation or arbitration. It is a major concern that restoration of the parties to their correct positions may become impossible where, after implementation of an adjudicator's mistaken decision, the beneficiary of the decision becomes insolvent. This article is a critical review of all the cases in which the courts have dealt with the effect of insolvency on the right to adjudicate and the enforceability of adjudicators' decisions. Two main conclusions are derived from the review. First, the court may decline to enforce an adjudicator's payment decision where there is strong evidence that, on account of formal insolvency, the payee would be unable to make repayment if final resolution of the dispute necessitates it. Second, the only exception so far to the general right to refer to adjudication arises where the other party is in administration. (Taylor & Francis)