Assessment of causes and settlement mechanisms of construction disputes in public work contracts: an Ethiopian perspective

• Autorzy: Kebede Sintayehu

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/ace.2022.140161

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Construction contracts are susceptible to disputes as they regulate very complex multi-party relationships. Previous studies not only fail to aptly outline the distinction between “conflict” and “dispute”, but also fail to adequately study the causes of construction disputes in-light of project delivery systems. The present research aims at assessing the causes and settlement mechanisms of construction disputes in Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and Design-Build (DB) delivery systems with a view to add evidence to the existing knowledge. Accordingly, four most relevant causes of construction disputes identified from previous works of literature were incorporated in a questionnaire survey to determine their frequency of occurrence in the two delivery systems. The Relative Important Index (RII) of the four direct causes of construction disputes computed by SPSS software revealed that, in DBB contracts, the frequency of occurrence of disputable claims (unsettled claims for money/extension of time) has RII = 0.794969/0.777358, project delay has RII = 0.708176, and poor quality of work has RII = 0.469182. In DB contracts, the frequency of occurrence of disputable claims has RII = 0.533333/0.515723, project delay has RII = 0.495597, and poor quality of work has RII = 0.465409. The RII values proved that, DBB projects are significantly prone to disputes than DB projects. Furthermore, qualitative data obtained from road and building project reports exposed that DBB projects are exceedingly prone to disputes because they are frequently vulnerable to an increase in the volume of work due to frequent change orders and design deficiencies. The research further found out that, despite a clear proscription in the laws of the land, there is a routine out of court settlement of public construction disputes in Ethiopia.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

adjudication; arbitration; conflict; design and build; dispute; dispute review; board expert; public contract; Ethiopia

PL

orzekanie; arbitraż; konflikt; zaprojektuj i wybuduj; spór; przegląd sporu; ekspert zarządu; zamówienie publiczne; Etiopia

• Wydawca: Komitet Inżynierii Lądowej i Wodnej PAN ; Politechnika Warszawska, Wydział Inżynierii Lądowej
• Czasopismo: Archives of Civil Engineering
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Vol. 68, nr 1
• Strony: 145--168
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 45 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Kebede Sintayehu

• Heilongjiang University, College of Law, Harbin, People’s Republic of China

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1504-4156

Bibliografia

• [1] G. Younis, et al., Minimizing construction disputes: the relationship between risk allocation and behavioral attitudes, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Minimizing-construction-disputes-%3A-the-relationship-Younis/5f3519c601bc423a8dde8c837259cefd57e75f86. [Accessed: Aug.2020].
• [2] J. Murdoch, W. Hughes. Construction Contract Law and Management, 3rd ed. Spon Press, Tailor and Francis Group, 2001.
• [3] C.K. Fong, et al., “Understanding the Sustainable Outcome of Project Delivery Methods in the Built Environment”, Organization Technology and Management in Construction An International Journal, 2014, vol. 6, DOI: 10.5592/otmcj.2014.3.9.
• [4] J.B. Miller, M.J. Garvin, C.W. Ibbs, S.E. Mahoney, “Toward a new paradigm: Simultaneous use of multiple project delivery methods”, Journal of Management in Engineering, 2000, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 58-67, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:3(58).
• [5] D. Moore, “Selecting the best project delivery system”, Paper presented at Project Management Institute Annual Seminars&Symposium, Houston, TX. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/selecting-best-project-delivery-system-8910. [Accessed: Oct. 2020].
• [6] D.K. Sintayehu, T. Zhang, “Public work contract laws on project delivery systems and their nexus with project efficiency: evidence from Ethiopia”, Heliyon, 2021, vol. 7, no. 3, DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06462.
• [7] M. Skene, R. Shaban, “Strategies to Avoid and Resolve Construction Disputes”, in Prepared for a conference held in Vancouver, B.C. hosted by Pacific Business & Law Institute, March 6, 2002, pp. 1-22. [Online]. Available: https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/cfb23a7c-8639-4fea-a601-2012056b3df8/BLG-Strategies-. [Accessed: Oct. 2020].
• [8] S.H. Wearne, Control of engineering projects, vol. 6. Thomas Telford, 1989, DOI: 10.1680/coep.13872.
• [9] C.M. Gordon, “Choosing appropriate construction contracting method”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 1994, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 196-210, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:1(196).
• [10] C.W. Ibbs, et al., “Project delivery systems and project change: Quantitative analysis”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2003, vol. 129, no. 4, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:4(382).
• [11] A. Touran, D.D. Gransberg, K.R. Molenaar, K. Ghavamifar, “Selection of project delivery method in transit: Drivers and objectives”, Journal of Management in Engineering, 2011, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 21-27, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000027.
• [12] P. Rwelamila, et al., “Project procurement systems in the attainment of sustainable construction”. Sustainable Development, 2000, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 39-50, DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1719(200002)8:1%3C39::AIDSD127%3E3.0.CO;2-Z.
• [13] J.L. Beard, M.C. Loulakis, E.C. Wundram, Design Build: Planning through Development. Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw Hill Publishers, 2001.
• [14] S.M. Levy, Design-Build Project Delivery: Managing the Building Process from Proposal through Construction. McGaw Hill professional, 2006.
• [15] World Bank, Guidance Note for Standard Bidding Document (SBD) for Works and Operation services, Design, Build and Operate (DBO), of Water and water Treatment Plants, 2017.
• [16] FIDIC Gold Book. Condition of Contract for Design, Build and Operate Projects, 1st ed., International Federation of Consulting Engineers, 2018.
• [17] Proc. No.649/2009: The Ethiopian Federal Government Procurement and Property Administration Proclamation.
• [18] Proc. No. 165/1960: The Civil Code of the Empire of Ethiopia.
• [19] D. Mengiste Mintesnot, “Ethiopian Public Private Partnership Framework”. [Online]. Available: https://www.abyssinialaw.com/online-resources/researches/others/ethiopian-public-private-partnership-framework. [Accessed: Mar. 2021].
• [20] Proc. No. 1076/2018: Public Private Partnership Proclamation.
• [21] K. Ketema, “Salient Features of the PPA General Conditions of Contract for Works” (unpublished), 2014.
• [22] T.H. Bahta, “Adjudication and Arbitrability of Government Construction Disputes”, Mizan Law Review, 2009, vol. 3 no.1, pp. 1-32.
• [23] J. Conlin, D. Langford, P. Kennedy, “The relationship between Construction Procurement Strategies and Construction Contract Disputes”, Managing the construction project and managing risk, 1996, vol. 2, pp. 360-371.
• [24] J. Mante, et al., “The influence of procurement methods on dispute resolution mechanism choice in construction”, in Procs 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, S.D. Smith, Ed. Edinburgh, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp. 979-988.
• [25] J.W.E. Masterman, Introduction to building procurement systems, 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis, 2002.
• [26] S.G. Mohamed, M. Maged, “Attributes and Causes of Contract Disputes in the Egyptian Construction Industry Before 2011”, presented at The 10th International Conference on Advances in Science, Engineering and Technology (ICASET-18) June 20-21, 2018 Paris (France).
• [27] S. Nasrollahi, G.M. Ghada, A. Atalah, “The Impact of Project Delivery Methods on Dispute Occurrence in Public Highway Projects”, Master of Technology Management Plan II Graduate Projects. 24, 2016, [Online]. Available: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ms_tech_mngmt/24. [Accessed: Jan. 2021].
• [28] P. Fenn, D.J. Lowe, C. Speck, “Conflict and dispute in construction”, Construction Management and Economics, 1997, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 513-518, DOI: 10.1080/014461997372719.
• [29] R.R.R.M. Rooshdia, et al., “Relative Importance Index of Sustainable Design and Construction Activities Criteria for Green Highway”, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 2018, vol. 63, DOI: 10.3303/CET1863026.
• [30] M. John, H. Will, Construction Contract Law and Management. 3rd ed. Taylor & Francis, 2001.
• [31] The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act of 1996.
• [32] Standard Bidding Document for Procurement of Works (National Competitive Bidding 2011), Ethiopian Federal Government Property Administration and Public Procurement Agency.
• [33] H.J. Kirsh, “Dispute Review Boards” and “Adjudication”, in Two Cutting-Edge ADR Processes in International Construction, conference paper at the 2008 American Bar Association Annual Meeting program of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution. [Online]. Available: https://cupdf.com/document/dispute-review-boards-and-adjudication-etc.html. [Accessed: Jan.2021].
• [34] ICC “Dispute Boards”: Available: http://www.iccwbo.org/court/dispute_boards/id4528/index.html, [Accessed: Jan. 2021].
• [35] M. Alemu, J. Wubishet, A. Tamene, “Assessment of Effectiveness of Dispute Review Expert Practice in Ethiopian Federal Road Projects”, International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research, 2015, vol. 3, no. 8. [Online]. Available: https://www.erpublication.org/. [Accessed: Jan. 2021].
• [36] Z. Keneaa, “Arbitrability in Ethiopia, posing the problem”, Journal of Ethiopian law, 1994, vol. XVII, 1994, [Online]. Available: https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA00220914_101. [Accessed: Jan. 2021].
• [37] S. Luttrell, “Basic Challenges in International Commercial Arbitration: The Need for a Real Danger Test”, Ph.D. Thesis, 2008.
• [38] T.E. Carbonneau, Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspective. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2009.
• [39] Decree No. 52/1965, Civil Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia 1965.
• [40] A. ENGEBØ, et al., “Collaborative Project Delivery Methods: A Scoping Review”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 202, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 278-303, DOI: 10.3846/jcem.2020.12186.
• [41] D.K. Sintayehu, Z. Tiewei, “Enforcement of legal remedies against construction projects time overrun in Ethiopia: A critical appraisal”, Heliyon, 2020, vol. 6, no. 10, DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05126.
• [42] W.G. Cochran, Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, 1977.
• [43] G.D. Israel, “Determining Sample Size, PEOD6”, 1991, [Online]. Available: https://www.tarleton.edu/academicassessment/documents/samplesize.pdf. [Accessed: Jan. 2021].
• [44] H.K. Sarmah, B.B. Hazarika, “Importance of the size of Sample and its determination in the context of data related to the schools of greater Guwahati”, Bulletin of the Gauhati University Mathematics Association, 2016, vol. 12. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306099484. [Accessed: Jan. 2021].
• [45] Proclamation No. 1237/2021: Arbitration and Conciliation, Working Procedure Proclamation.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).