Design development post contract signing in New Zealand: Client's or contractor's cost?

David Finnie, Naseem Ameer Ali, Kenneth Park

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

By offering fixed-price contracts for designs supplied by clients, contractors legally warrant that they can build what has been designed and do so within their fixed price. Yet detailed drawings are often issued during construction in response to contractors' requests for information on the basis that they cannot otherwise build what has been designed. Claim-entitlement decisions are often made by construction professionals (architects, engineers and quantity surveyors) without legal training in contractual interpretation, potentially varying who pays for design development after contract signing, contractors or clients. Prior studies have addressed buildability obligations relating to ground conditions and foundations. This study applies key principles of contract law to consider who should pay for instructed drawing details post contract signing under the New Zealand standard NZS 3910:2013, 'Conditions of contract for building and civil engineering construction', in terms of (a) when a variation claim may be accepted; (b) the effect of contractor involvement on design development; and (c) the effect if claimed from a building subcontractor to a consultant manager (no head contractor). A claim-entitlement flow chart and a table comparing the head contractor's and consultant construction manager's obligations provide practical guides for contract administrators. Identifying terms prone to interpretation informs contract drafters towards reducing ambiguity for contract users and therefore the potential for dispute.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)146-156
Number of pages11
JournalProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law
Volume172
Issue number4
Early online date17 Jun 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Jul 2019

Fingerprint

Contractors
Costs
Managers
New Zealand
Civil engineering
Engineers

Bibliographical note

© 2019 Thomas Telford Ltd. Original article available at https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/10.1680/jmapl.18.00044. Permission is granted by ICE Publishing to print one copy for personal use. Any other use of these PDF files is subject to reprint fees.

Keywords

  • contracts & law
  • procurement
  • project management

Cite this

Finnie, D., Ali, N. A., & Park, K. (2019). Design development post contract signing in New Zealand: Client's or contractor's cost? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law, 172(4), 146-156. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmapl.18.00044
Finnie, David ; Ali, Naseem Ameer ; Park, Kenneth. / Design development post contract signing in New Zealand : Client's or contractor's cost?. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law. 2019 ; Vol. 172, No. 4. pp. 146-156.
@article{0211459d991e401ea29842e0775c9515,
title = "Design development post contract signing in New Zealand: Client's or contractor's cost?",
abstract = "By offering fixed-price contracts for designs supplied by clients, contractors legally warrant that they can build what has been designed and do so within their fixed price. Yet detailed drawings are often issued during construction in response to contractors' requests for information on the basis that they cannot otherwise build what has been designed. Claim-entitlement decisions are often made by construction professionals (architects, engineers and quantity surveyors) without legal training in contractual interpretation, potentially varying who pays for design development after contract signing, contractors or clients. Prior studies have addressed buildability obligations relating to ground conditions and foundations. This study applies key principles of contract law to consider who should pay for instructed drawing details post contract signing under the New Zealand standard NZS 3910:2013, 'Conditions of contract for building and civil engineering construction', in terms of (a) when a variation claim may be accepted; (b) the effect of contractor involvement on design development; and (c) the effect if claimed from a building subcontractor to a consultant manager (no head contractor). A claim-entitlement flow chart and a table comparing the head contractor's and consultant construction manager's obligations provide practical guides for contract administrators. Identifying terms prone to interpretation informs contract drafters towards reducing ambiguity for contract users and therefore the potential for dispute.",
keywords = "contracts & law, procurement, project management",
author = "David Finnie and Ali, {Naseem Ameer} and Kenneth Park",
note = "{\circledC} 2019 Thomas Telford Ltd. Original article available at https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/10.1680/jmapl.18.00044. Permission is granted by ICE Publishing to print one copy for personal use. Any other use of these PDF files is subject to reprint fees.",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1680/jmapl.18.00044",
language = "English",
volume = "172",
pages = "146--156",
number = "4",

}

Finnie, D, Ali, NA & Park, K 2019, 'Design development post contract signing in New Zealand: Client's or contractor's cost?', Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law, vol. 172, no. 4, pp. 146-156. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmapl.18.00044

Design development post contract signing in New Zealand : Client's or contractor's cost? / Finnie, David; Ali, Naseem Ameer; Park, Kenneth.

In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law, Vol. 172, No. 4, 24.07.2019, p. 146-156.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Design development post contract signing in New Zealand

T2 - Client's or contractor's cost?

AU - Finnie, David

AU - Ali, Naseem Ameer

AU - Park, Kenneth

N1 - © 2019 Thomas Telford Ltd. Original article available at https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/10.1680/jmapl.18.00044. Permission is granted by ICE Publishing to print one copy for personal use. Any other use of these PDF files is subject to reprint fees.

PY - 2019/7/24

Y1 - 2019/7/24

N2 - By offering fixed-price contracts for designs supplied by clients, contractors legally warrant that they can build what has been designed and do so within their fixed price. Yet detailed drawings are often issued during construction in response to contractors' requests for information on the basis that they cannot otherwise build what has been designed. Claim-entitlement decisions are often made by construction professionals (architects, engineers and quantity surveyors) without legal training in contractual interpretation, potentially varying who pays for design development after contract signing, contractors or clients. Prior studies have addressed buildability obligations relating to ground conditions and foundations. This study applies key principles of contract law to consider who should pay for instructed drawing details post contract signing under the New Zealand standard NZS 3910:2013, 'Conditions of contract for building and civil engineering construction', in terms of (a) when a variation claim may be accepted; (b) the effect of contractor involvement on design development; and (c) the effect if claimed from a building subcontractor to a consultant manager (no head contractor). A claim-entitlement flow chart and a table comparing the head contractor's and consultant construction manager's obligations provide practical guides for contract administrators. Identifying terms prone to interpretation informs contract drafters towards reducing ambiguity for contract users and therefore the potential for dispute.

AB - By offering fixed-price contracts for designs supplied by clients, contractors legally warrant that they can build what has been designed and do so within their fixed price. Yet detailed drawings are often issued during construction in response to contractors' requests for information on the basis that they cannot otherwise build what has been designed. Claim-entitlement decisions are often made by construction professionals (architects, engineers and quantity surveyors) without legal training in contractual interpretation, potentially varying who pays for design development after contract signing, contractors or clients. Prior studies have addressed buildability obligations relating to ground conditions and foundations. This study applies key principles of contract law to consider who should pay for instructed drawing details post contract signing under the New Zealand standard NZS 3910:2013, 'Conditions of contract for building and civil engineering construction', in terms of (a) when a variation claim may be accepted; (b) the effect of contractor involvement on design development; and (c) the effect if claimed from a building subcontractor to a consultant manager (no head contractor). A claim-entitlement flow chart and a table comparing the head contractor's and consultant construction manager's obligations provide practical guides for contract administrators. Identifying terms prone to interpretation informs contract drafters towards reducing ambiguity for contract users and therefore the potential for dispute.

KW - contracts & law

KW - procurement

KW - project management

UR - https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/10.1680/jmapl.18.00044

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073907626&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1680/jmapl.18.00044

DO - 10.1680/jmapl.18.00044

M3 - Article

VL - 172

SP - 146

EP - 156

IS - 4

ER -

Finnie D, Ali NA, Park K. Design development post contract signing in New Zealand: Client's or contractor's cost? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law. 2019 Jul 24;172(4):146-156. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmapl.18.00044