Pre-Contract Measures to Avoid Potential Disputes in the New Zealand Construction Industry
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
New Zealand (NZ) construction industry suffers from negative implications of disputes in construction projects similar to any other country. Hence, the importance of avoiding disputes has become a vital topic to discuss and research. Avoiding disputes in construction projects has always been challenging, and very few studies have addressed this area and none have investigated possible pre-contract steps to avoid potential disputes in the New Zealand construction industry. To address this research gap, this study has been designed, and it has only been limited to construction projects in NZ that followed the traditional procurement path. Fourteen professionals in the NZ construction industry with significant experience and knowledge in construction disputes were interviewed, and the data gathered was analysed qualitatively. 84 Pre-contract measures to avoid potential construction related disputes have been identified under 5 themes (themes of causes of disputes). The most responsible party/parties and most applicable pre-contract stage/s for each dispute avoidance step has also been presented. Clarity & communication, risk management, proper documentation & standardization, review & continuous improvements and collaboration are the main underlying characteristics of the identified avoidance measures. Amongst the identified avoidance measures, clear scope documentation and expectation management meetings were mostly highlighted by the respondents. The proposed dispute avoidance measures could be useful for Principals, tenderers, and consultants in NZ in avoiding potential disputes. Moreover, this study has paved further research paths to investigate dispute avoidance strategies for other procurement paths (other than traditional procurement path) and to further study on practically workable ways of documenting the construction scope clearly.
Article Details
Section
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share and adapt the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Open Access Citation Advantage Service). Where authors include such a work in an institutional repository or on their website (ie. a copy of a work which has been published in a UTS ePRESS journal, or a pre-print or post-print version of that work), we request that they include a statement that acknowledges the UTS ePRESS publication including the name of the journal, the volume number and a web-link to the journal item.
d) Authors should be aware that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License permits readers to share (copy and redistribute the work in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the work) for any purpose, even commercially, provided they also give appropriate credit to the work, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. They may do these things in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests you or your publisher endorses their use.
How to Cite
References
Ayhan, M., Dikmen, I., & Birgonul, M. T. (2021). Predicting the Occurrence of Construction Disputes Using Machine Learning Techniques [Article]. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 147(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002027
De Alwis, I., Abeynayake, M., & Francis, M. (2016). Dispute avoidance model for Sri Lankan construction industry.
Diekmann, J. E., & Girard, M. J. (1995). Are contract disputes predictable? Journal of construction engineering and management, 121(4), 355-363.
Finnie, D. (2021). A contractual framework for two-stage early-contractor involvement (2S-ECI) in New Zealand commercial construction projects [Thesis, Massey University]. Massey Research Online. http://ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,uid&db=ir00033a&AN=massnz.10179.16327&site=eds-live&scope=site&authtype=sso&custid=s3027306
http://hdl.handle.net/10179/16327
Gerber, P. (2013). Dispute Avoidance Procedures ('DAPs')-The Changing Face of Construction Dispute Management. Gerber, Paula ‘Dispute Avoidance Procedures (“DAPs”)–The Changing Face of Construction Dispute Management’(2001), 1, 122-129.
Jannadia, M. O., Assaf, S., Bubshait, A., & Naji, A. (2000). Contractual methods for dispute avoidance and resolution (DAR). International Journal of Project Management, 18(1), 41-49.
Molenaar, K., Washington, S., & Diekmann, J. (2000). Structural equation model of construction contract dispute potential. Journal of construction engineering and management, 126(4), 268-277.
New Zealand Standards, 2013. Conditions of Contract for Building and Civil Engineering Works. [Online]
Available at: https://www-standards-govt-nz.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/my-account/managesubscriptions/onlinelibrary/view
Omar, K. S., Ola, L., & Amund, B. (2019). Why conflicts occur in roads and tunnels projects in Norway [article]. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2019.8566
Parikh, D., Joshi, G., & Patel, D. (2019). Development of prediction models for claim cause analyses in highway projects. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 11(4), 04519018.
Ramachandra, T., & Rotimi, J. O. (2011). The Nature of Payment Problems in the New Zealand Construction Industry [article]. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 11(2), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.5130/ajceb.v11i2.2171
RIBA, T. R. I. o. B. A. (2023). RIBA Plan of Work. https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/riba-plan-of-work
Silva, P., Domingo, N., & Ameer Ali, N. (2023). Quantitative analysis of construction-related legal cases in New Zealand.
Tabish, S. Z. S., & Jha, K. N. (2023). Dispute avoidance in public construction projects. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 15(1), 04522033.
Yiu, T. W., Lu, Z., & Ang, K. P. (2021). A Study of Construction Disputes in the New Zealand Context. In EASEC16 (pp. 2075-2083). Springer.
Zhu, L., & Cheung, S. O. (2020). Power of incentivisation in construction dispute avoidance. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 12(2), 03720001