Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction (한국건축시공학회지)

The Korean Institute of Building Construction (한국건축시공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Process of Identifying the Responsibility Party of Caused Delay Claim by Ambiguity of the Conditions of the Contract

계약 조항의 애매모호성에 의해서 발생되는 공기지연 클레임의 책임 당사자 확인 프로세스

  • Lee, Chijoo (Construction Economy & Industry Research Division, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements) ;
  • Kwan, Taewook (Construction Administration Team, POSCO Engineering & Construction) ;
  • Koh, Hoonsuk (Shinpyeongtaek LNG Power Plant Construction Site, POSCO Engineering & Construction)
  • Received : 2020.09.22
  • Accepted : 2020.11.21
  • Published : 2020.12.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzed main causes of claims in EPC/Turnkey projects. For this purpose, this study referred to the FIDIC silver book, which lists the international standard contract conditions for EPC/Turnkey projects. The most frequent cause of claim was delay. A process was then proposed to determine whether the owner or contractor was the responsible party when the delay claim occurred. The proposed process was for damages for delay which is the conditions of contract for indemnities against delay claim. The process was based on conditions of the contract of two previous EPC/Turnkey projects that were constructed in 2010, the FIDIC silver book, as well as the obligations of owner and contactors. The proposed process is applicable depending on the conditions of the contract and the owner's meaning. Furthermore, by identifying the responsible party, this study will contribute in identifying the possible claim types before concluding a contract and writing the specific contract.

본 연구에서는 EPC/턴키 프로젝트에서 발생 가능한 클레임의 주요 원인들을 발주자와 건설사의 관점에서 분석하였다. 그 원인들은 EPC/턴키 프로젝트의 표준 계약서인 FIDIC 실버 북을 기반으로 도출하였다. 발생 빈도가 가장 높은 클레임의 유형은 공기지연으로 분석되었다. 그 후, 가장 발생 빈도가 높은 클레임에 대한 책임이 계약 당사자간에 누구에게 있는지를 분석하는 프로세스를 제안하였다. 제안된 프로세스는 2010년에 수행한 2건의 대규모 EPC/턴키 프로젝트들과 FIDIC 실버 북의 공기지연 클레임에 관련된 계약 조항들을 기반으로 제안되었다. 제안된 프로세스는 발주자가 공사기간 지연에 대해 배상금을 설정하는지에 대한 의도에 따라 분류된다. 본 연구의 주요 기여도는 사례 프로젝트의 계약 조건을 기반으로 다양한 계약 유형에 적용할 수 있는 프로세스를 제안한 것이다. 뿐만 아니라, 계약서 작성 전에 발생 가능한 클레임의 유형을 확인할 수 있고, 공사기간 지연 클레임이 발생할 경우에 책임 당사자를 예측할 수 있으므로, 명확한 계약서 작성에도 기여할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Daube D, Vollrath S, Alfen HW. A comparison of project finance and the forfeiting model as financing forms for PPP projects in Germany. International Journal of Project Management. 2008 May;26(4):376-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.001
  2. Merrow EW. Industrial megaprojects: concepts, strategies, and practices for success. Hoboken:John Wiley &Sons; 2011. 384p.
  3. Jun SH. Problem analysis and improvement strategy for overseas plant construction by EPC lump-sum turnkey system [master thesis]. [Seoul (Korea)]: Chung-Ang University; 2009. 95 p.
  4. Kwon TW. The framework development of EPC project claims management system[master thesis]. [Pohang (Korea)]. Pohang University of Science and Technology. 2015. 98 p.
  5. Kululanga GK, Kuotcha W, McCaffer R, Edum-Fotwe F. Construction contractors' claim process framework. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2001 Aug;127(4):309-14.https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364 (2001)127:4(309)
  6. Hartman FT, Snelgrove P, Ashrafi R. Appropriate risk allocation in lump-sum contracts-who should take the risk. Cost Engineering. 1998 Jul;40(7):21-6.
  7. Construction Industry Institute. Equitable risk allocation: a legal perspective. Texas: Construction Industry Institute, Austin. 2007. 62 P.
  8. Kim SH. The research on standard contract conditions of oversea construction project(FIDIC) [master thesis]. [Seoul (Korea)]: Seoul National University. 2014. 394 p.
  9. Ashley DB, Dunlop JR, Parker MM. Impact of risk allocation and equity in construction contracts: an overview of indemnification, consequential damages, differing conditions &delay clauses. Texas: Construction Industry Institute, Austin. 1988. 432 p.
  10. Ibbs CW. Determining the impact of various construction contract types and clauses on project performance. Texas: Construction Industry Institute, Austin. 1986. 227 p.
  11. Scott S, Harris RA. United kingdom construction claims: views of professionals. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2004 Oct;130(5):734-41. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:5(734)
  12. Yoon JS, Yoo BE. A study of analyzing claim factor and making strategies to prevent claim in early stage for architectural turn-key project. Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction. 2006 May;6(1):93-9. https://doi.org/10.5345/JKIC.2006.6.1.093
  13. Abdul-Malak MAU, El-Saadi MMH, Abou-Zeid MG. Process model for administrating construction claims. Journal of Management in Engineering. 2002 Apr;18(2):84-94. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:2(84)
  14. Hegab MY, Nassar KM. Decision support system for commencement delay claims. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction. 2005 Aug;10(3):177-80. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2005)10:3(177)
  15. Kim SC, Jung BH. Dispute settlement in construction contracts under FIDIC. Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction. 2010 Aug;10(4):21-9. https://doi.org/10.5345/JKIC.2010.10.4.021
  16. Kim YJ, Kim TK, Jo DS. Lee HK. A study on substantiation methodology for extension of time in international megaproject claims. Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2015 May;16(3):165-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.6106/KJCEM.2015.16.3.165
  17. Ko HS. Risk analysis of contractual provisions for EPC/Turnkey projects: Contractor''s liability position [master thesis], [Pohang (Korea)]: Pohang University of Science and Technology. 2014. 97p.
  18. The international Federation of Consulting Engineers. Conditions of contract for EPC/Trunkey projects. Geneva: The international Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC); 1999. 122 p.
  19. The society of construction law. The society of construction law delay and disruption protocol. 2nd ed. Leicestershire: The society of construction law; 2002. 84 p.