Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand
CONTRACT PROVISION INADEQUACIES IN INFRASTRUCTURE
DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT : A CASE STUDY
Kongkoon Tochaiwat, Visuth Chovichien
Department of Civil Engineering, Chulalongkorn University
254 Phyathai Road Patumwan, Bangkok 10330, THAILAND
E-mail: kongkoon@chula.com, fcevcc@eng.chula.ac.th
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study is to address the problems in the provisions of design-build
contracts for Thailand’s infrastructure projects, using the “Bang Na-Bang Pli-Bang Pakong
Expressway Project(BBBE)” as a case study. From the study, two groups of problems were
identified from BBBE contract : 1) absence of significant provisions and 2) inappropriateness
of contract provisions. Twelve of significant provisions are absent, which can be classified
into six groups, i.e. clauses concerning technical provisions & general management, quality,
time, cost & payment, risk, and claims / disputes & termination. In addition, four clauses not
encouraging efficient contract management were presented. Although the majority of the
negative effects caused by the said inadequacies did not actually appear in the real design and
construction phrases, there were some problems in BBBE project that seem to be caused by
some of these inadequate provisions.
KEYWORDS: design-build, contract, infrastructure, construction, FIDIC
INTRODUCTION
Design-build contract is a form of construction contract that differ from the traditional
design-bid-build contract in the extent that the scope of the contractor’s work comprises both
design and construction of the project. This employment approach enhances many
advantages such as being a comprehensive approach to reduce construction cost, stimulating
the technological prowess and reducing disputes & lawsuits. Design-build contracts have
been used in employment of construction projects for a long time. There were the provisions
specifying the sole responsibility of the builder in the “Code of Hammurabi
(1795 – 1750 B.C.)”, even though they are not an obvious form of design-build
contracts(Beard, 2001). At the present time, design-build contracts have become popular in
most parts of the world and it can be anticipated that this form of contract will be increasingly
adopted. Design-Build Institute of America(DBIA) predicted that a half of all nonresidential
constructions in the United States of America will be employed by design-build contracts by
the year 2010(Beard, 2001). In Thailand, there have been many infrastructure projects that
adopted this contract form, namely Suvarnabhumi Airport, Samut Prakarn Wastewater
Management Project, and Bang Na-Bang Pli-Bang Pakong Expressway Project.
Despite the benefits of design-build contracts being implemented in an increasing number
of Thai public infrastructure projects, a few design-build projects did not seem to produce the
level of performance as expected by the public. Among many factors cited as the explanation
for these failures, the inadequacy of the contract clauses is claimed to be a possible important
reason of the nonperformance. An example project is the “Bang Na-Bang Pli-Bang Pakong
Expressway Project(BBBE)”, a design-build project that became one of the most scandalous
issues concerning the infrastructure projects in Thailand during the end of 1990’s.
Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand
The BBBE project was approved by the Thai government on 29 November 1994.
The contractor’s obligation was to design and construct a 55-kilometer, six lanes, box girder
with Y-shaped pier structural system expressway connecting Bangkok with Chon Buri, one of
the important province in the Eastern part, with the time for completion of 42 months. The
approximately 580 million dollar project experienced the arbitrators’ decision to pay for
claims for additional payments amounting to about 140 million dollar, part of which is
supposed to compensate for damages suffered by the contractor for not getting access to the
rights of way for the construction.
The objective of this paper is to examine the problems in the provisions of design-build
contracts for Thailand’s infrastructure projects, using the “Bang Na-Bang Pli-Bang Pakong
Expressway Project(BBBE)” as a case study.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study was performed in the following steps :
1) Reviewing the related literature
This step was to collect all background information and data required to perform the study.
These knowledge and information consisted of two groups : the construction contract
principles and the BBBE project data. The contract principles would explain the function of
each contract provisions, the inappropriate contract provisions, with their effect on contract
management efficiency and their explanation of the real world problems. The project data
would illustrate the expected outcome and the actual result of the project, and the real-world
problems in the project development.
2) Comparing the contract of the “Bang Na-Bang Pli-Bang Pakong Expressway
Project(BBBE)” with the “Conditions of Contract for Design-Build and Turnkey”
 

1995 by the Federation
Internationale des Ingenieurs-Conseils(FIDIC)
The purpose of this step was to search for the absence of significant contract clauses.
This can be done by reviewing the BBBE contract clause-by-clause, reviewing the
FIDIC(1995) contract to find the corresponding clauses with the BBBE contract, and
analyzing the level of importance of the absent contract clauses. The FIDIC(1995) contract
clauses without the corresponding BBBE clauses were inspected to find their importance to
the contract management process. Only the significant absent contract clauses and their
effects were discussed in this paper.
3) Analyzing the present contract clauses by comparison with related FIDIC(1995)
contract clauses, construction law principles, and contract management principles
The BBBE contract provisions that correspond to the FIDIC(1995) contract provisions
were then examined to identify the inappropriate contract provisions. The differences
between provisions of both contracts were analyzed to find the impact that might occur from
those differences. The different provisions that cause positive or trivial negative effects to the
contract management efficiency were neglected. Only the significant inappropriate contract
provisions and their effects were discussed.
4) Conclusion
CONTRACT COMPOSITION OF BBBE CONTRACT AND
FIDIC(1995) DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT
The FIDIC(1995) contract consists of 20 clauses(160 sub-clauses) : 1) The Contract,
2) The Employer, 3) The Employer’s Representative, 4) The Contractor, 5) Design, 6) Staff
and Labour, 7) Plant, Materials and Workmanship, 8) Commencement, Delays and
Suspension, 9) Tests on Completion, 10) Employer’s Taking Over, 11) Test after Completion,
Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand
12) Defects Liability, 13) Contract Price and Payment, 14) Variations, 15) Default of
Contractor, 16) Default of Employer, 17) Risk and Responsibility, 18) Insurance, 19) Force
Majeure, and 20) Claims, Disputes and Arbitration.
BBBE contract consists of 11 clauses(85 sub-clauses) : 1.1) Definitions and
Interpretations, 1.2) General, 1.3) Guarantees and Mobilization Payment, 1.4) Scope of Work,
1.5) Control of the Work, 1.6) Control of Material, 1.7) Legal Relations and Responsibility to
Public,
1.8) Prosecution and Progress, 1.9) Payment, 1.10) Wages and Conditions of
Employment, 1.11) Consequential Damage. Note that the first number “1” of all clauses
indicate that these clauses are in Annex 1(Condition of Contract) of the contract.
Unlike FIDIC(1995), the contents of the BBBE contract provisions are a mixing of the
general conditions and the particular conditions. The individual project details are
incorporated with the general details in the contract provisions. For example, in specifying
the performance bond amount, sub-clause 1.3.1[Contract Guarantees and Bonds] of BBBE
contract specifies that the contractor :
“…provide …(EMPLOYER)… with performance bonds for each Subphase guaranteeing
its obligations and liabilities hereunder with an aggregate value of five(5) percent of the
Fixed Cost of each Subphase…”(ETA, 1995)
Whereas, sub-clause 4.2[Performance Security] of the FIDIC(1995) design-build contract
specifies the same topic by separating the general details and the particular details :
“…The Contractor shall obtain, at his cost, a performance security from a third party, in
the amount and currencies specified in the Appendix to Tender…”(FIDIC, 1995)
If the particular details of the project are separated from the general details, the reader can
quickly scan through the core provisions(those generally considered standard in most
contracts) and focus on the individual details of the project only. This practice can reduce the
time consumed and the error in reviewing the contract provisions. The conditions of contract
with combined general details and particular details have a drawback as to the difficulty in
reviewing the contract provisions. Furthermore, it increases the chance of the mistake
occurred by the reader’s negligence of some significant details in the contract.
ABSENCE OF SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS
Twelve significant contract clauses are absent from BBBE contract. These can be
classified into six groups, i.e. clauses concerning technical provision & general management,
quality, time, cost & payment, risk, and claim/dispute & termination. Table 1 shows the
topics, the relevant clause numbers of the FIDIC’s Orange Book(1995) and the brief
descriptions of these clauses.
Table 1 Significant clauses absent from the BBBE contract
GROUP
1. Technical
Provision &
General
Management
TOPIC
Employer’s
Entitlement to
Terminate
FIDIC’S
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
CLAUSE
NUMBER
2.4
This clause specifies the right of the
employer to terminate the contract for his
convenience and what the contractor
should do when the contract is terminated.
Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand
Table 1 Significant clauses absent from the BBBE contract (Cont.)
GROUP
TOPIC
Employer’s
Representative
to Attempt
Agreement
2. Quality
Ownership of
Plant and
Materials
Contractor’s
Obligations to
Test on
Completion
Technical
Standards and
Regulations
Notice to
Correct
3. Time
Progress Report
Extension of
Contract Period
4. Cost &
Payment
Delayed
Payment
5. Risk
Release from
Performance
under the Law
6. Claim/
Dispute &
Termination
Unforeseeable
Sub-Surface
Conditions
Procedure for
Claims
FIDIC’S
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
CLAUSE
NUMBER
3.5
This clause requires the effort on the side
of the employer’s representative to attempt
to find agreement with the contractor first.
If agreement can not be reached, the
employer’s representative must make
determination fairly and reasonably in
accordance with the contract.
7.6
This clause specifies the preconditions that
the plant and materials will become the
properties of the employer.
9.1
According to this clause, the contractor has
to carry out and to report the test on
completion in accordance with the
specified provisions.
5.4
This clause determines that contractor’s
design must comply with the related
specifications, standards, regulations and
laws on the base date. Any changes in
such rules will be taken as the variation.
15.1
This clause gives right to the employer’s
representative to send notice to correct
requiring the contractor to remedy his
failure within a reasonable time.
4.15
This clause specifies that the contractor
has to send the employer a progress report
comprising the specified details monthly.
12.3
According to this clause, the contract
period will be extended in case the work
cannot be used for the purposes for which
they are intended.
13.8
This clause gives the contractor right to
receive the financing charges, if the
employer pays him lately.
19.7
This clause requires the employer to pay
the contractor in accordance with the
specified provisions if both parties are
released from further performance
resulting from the law.
4.11
This clause specifies that the contractor
will receive the extension of time and/or
the additional payment if he encounters the
unforeseeable sub-surface condition.
20.1
According to this clause, the contractor has
the right to claim for additional payment
by following the specified procedures.
Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand
INAPPROPRIATENESS OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS
Besides the absent significant contract clauses shown in the Table 1, there are many
clauses not encouraging efficient contract management found in the BBBE contract.
Four clauses of them seem to be the significant inappropriate contract clauses :
1. The Right to Vary the Work :
The right to vary the work is very important to the employer to ensure the project will
meet his requirement. Without variation clause, the employer has to negotiate with the
contractor to amend the contract every time he wants to expand the scope of the work.
The project would be delayed until the parties could reach an agreement. Conversely, if an
employer needs or wants to delete some of the work in the contract, he would be unable to do
so in the absence of the variation clause. However, trying to reach an agreement between
parties before issuing the variation order would delay and cause damages to the project.
The employer’s representative should have the right to issue instruction to vary the work
without causing any delay to the work.
From sub-clause 1.4.2[Variations] of BBBE contract, the employer can issue the variation
order only if both parties can reach agreement of the change in contract price or time to
completion allowed for that variation. The provision specifies that the consultant :
“…shall effectively issue a Variation Order if agreement has been reached on the
increase/ decrease of Fixed Cost and/or of Target Completion Date. …”(ETA, 1995)
However, the agreement in the change in contract price or time to completion is not the
pre-condition to issue the variation order in the “Conditions of Contract for Design-Build and
Turnkey”(1995). The employer’s representative has right to issue variation order at any time
during the contract period. Sub-clause 14.1[Right to Vary] of the FIDIC(1995) contract
determines :
“…Variations may be initiated by the employer’s representative at any time during the
Contract Period, either by instruction or by a request for the Contractor to submit a
proposal…”
2. The Dispute Resolution Procedure :
Disputes are difficult to avoid in any construction project. Thus, the dispute resolution
process is always specified in the construction contract. The effective dispute resolution
process can help both parties to solve the arising dispute timely, cost-effectively, without
causing any delay or impediment to the works.
The dispute resolution process determined in sub-clause 1.5.10[Arbitration of Disputes]
of the BBBE contract requires the parties to use the amicable settlement process to settle the
dispute arising from the work. In case the amicable settlement process fails, the said dispute
shall be referred to the arbitration process.
“If any difference or dispute whatsoever shall arise…both parties agree to use their best
endeavours to mutually resolve such difference or dispute. Should this method fail to achieve
a mutually acceptable solution…the same shall be referred to arbitration…”(ETA, 1995)
Even though the arbitration process is less formal than litigation; it can still be highly
cost- and time-consuming. Sub-clauses 20.3 to 20.8 of the “Conditions of Contract for
Design-Build and Turnkey”(1995) provide an alternative to deal with the dispute settlement
Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand
process. The dispute occurred shall be firstly referred to the “Dispute Adjudication
Board(DAB)”, which consist of one or three member(s) jointly appointed by both parties,
before adopting the amicable settlement and the arbitration process respectively. The benefit
of this adjudication board is to reduce cost and time consumed in the arbitration process by
using the informal method(Bowcock, 1998).
3. The “Excepted Risks Clause” :
The purpose of the “Excepted Risks Clause” is to avoid the price increase resulting from
the contractor allowing for the contingencies of rarely occurring circumstances in his cost
estimates. This can be achieved by defining the employer’s responsibility to bear the said risk.
To allocate the high risk to the employer will not encourage the efficient contract
management.
Sub-clause 1.7.19[Excepted Risks] of the BBBE contract specifies the circumstances that
the contractor shall not be liable in respect of the damages to the works and be entitled to
payment for any works destroyed, and payment from the employer covering the cost of
making good and of replacing any damage to the works.
“…If the Works shall sustain destruction or damage by reason of any of the said
Excepted Risks the Contractor shall nevertheless be entitled to payment for any Works
destroyed or damaged, … , and the Contractor shall be entitled to be paid by
…(EMPLOYER)… the cost of making good and of replacing any such destruction or damage
to the Works, … , or as …(EMPLOYER’S REPRESENTATIVE)… may certify to be
reasonable. …”(ETA, 1995)
These excepting events include the event that the employer fails to provide the contractor
the rights of way from another public authority, details in sub-clause 1.7.14[Furnishing ROW
and Utilities].
“…The non availability in time of the right of use of …(ROW OWNER)…’s ROW or of
additional land for Permanent Works outside …(ROW OWNER)…’s ROW which causes
damages or losses to the Contractor will be considered as an Excepted Risk…”(ETA, 1995)
When compared with sub-clause 2.2[Access to and Possession of the Site] of the FIDIC’s
“Conditions of Contract for Design-Build and Turnkey”(1995), the contractor’s entitlement
due to the employer’s failure to provide the access to the site is only to “claim” for extension
of time or for additional payment to compensate his damage, which the employer’s
representative shall have the responsibility to determine whether the contractor’s claim shall
be agreed or how much time or payment the contractor will receive(FIDIC, 1995).
“…If the Contractor suffers delay and/or incurs Cost from failure on the part of the
Employer to grant right of access to or possession of the Site,…the Employer’s Representative
shall proceed in accordance with Sub-Clause 3.5 to agree or determine:
(a) any extension of time…
(b) the amount of such Cost plus reasonable Profit…”(FIDIC, 1995)
The risk of failure to provide the rights of way from other organization is quite high and
should not be allocated to the employer via excepted risks clause. Furthermore, the
consequences of the excepted risks clauses specified in both BBBE contract and FIDIC(1995)
contract are rather different in detail. Sub-clause 1.7.19[Excepted Risks] of the BBBE
contract clearly specifies the employer to pay the contractor for a number of items in case he
Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand
fails to give the right to access to the site. However, the contractor’s claim against the
employer’s failure to give the right to access to the site is subjected to the determination of the
employer’s representative in accordance with sub-clause 2.2[Access to and Possession of the
Site] of the FIDIC(1995) design-build contract.
4. Determination of Additional Payment and Time Extension
The determination of additional payment and time extension procedure in the BBBE
contract differs from that in the FIDIC’s “Conditions of Contract for Design-Build and
Turnkey”(1995). While the BBBE contract empowers the consultant(as the employer’s
representative) to decide on the matter, the FIDIC(1995) contract requires that an agreement
between employer’s representative and contractor be attempted first. From sub-clause
1.9.2[Adjustments to Target Completion Date and Fixed Cost] of the BBBE contract,
the consultant has sole right to determine the additional payment and time to completion to
the contractor.
“…As soon as reasonably practicable after receipt of the notice, the …(EMPLOYER’S
REPRESENTATIVE)…shall consider the notice and the event and make such inquiries and
investigations as he sees fit and, if he determines that … the Contractor is entitled to an
adjustment …, shall (I) grant to the Contractor…a fair and reasonable adjustment of the
relevant Completion Period… and/or (II) adjust…the relevant Fixed Cost…”(ETA, 1995)
Sub-clause 3.5[Employer’s Representative to Attempt Agreement] of FIDIC(1995)
design-build contract specifies that the employer’s representative shall try to find an
agreement between both parties as to the additional payment and time that the contractor is
entitled to.
“…When the Employer’s Representative is required to determine value, Cost or extension
of time, he shall consult with the Contractor in an endeavour to reach agreement.
If agreement is not achieved, the Employer’s Representative shall determine the matter fairly,
reasonably and in accordance with the Contract…” (FIDIC, 1995)
However, the above sub-clause of FIDIC(1995) still has a weak point because it does not
require the employer’s agreement to be obtained before the engineer issues his determination.
These problems of the FIDIC(1995) are then corrected in the “Conditions of Contract for
Plant and Design-Build for Electrical and Mechanical Plant and for Building and Engineering
Works Design by the Contractor”(1999). Sub-clause 3.5[Determinations] determines :
“…the Engineer shall consult with each Party in an endeavour to reach agreement.
If agreement is not achieved, the Engineer shall make a fair determination in accordance with
the Contract…”(FIDIC, 1999)
The endeavor of the employer’s representative to find the agreement between both parties
can reduce the claims and disputes occurred.
EFFECT OF CONTRACT INADEQUACIES IN BBBE CONTRACT
Contract inadequacies in BBBE contract can be categorized into six aspects : Technical &
General Management, Quality, Time, Cost & Payment, Risk, and Claim/Dispute &
Termination. These provisions may lead to the negative effects to the project in a number of
ways such as causing delay, increasing the risk of project failure, increasing the number of
Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand
claims for additional payment or extension of time, depriving the quality of the works, leading
to the ambiguity of both parties’ rights & responsibilities, and causing the unavoidable breach
of contract. The relationships between these inadequate provisions and their effects are
shown in the Table 2 and by the cause-effect diagram in Fig. 1.
Table 2 Effect of the Inadequate Provisions of BBBE Contract
TOPIC
1. Employer’s
Entitlement to
Terminate
2. Employer’s
Representative
to Attempt
Agreement
3. Unforeseeable
Sub-Surface
Conditions
4. Progress
Reports
5. Technical
Standards and
Regulations
6. Ownership of
the Plant and
Materials
7. Contractor’s
Obligations(to
tests on
completion)
8. Extension of
Contract
Period(in case
the work can
not be used for
the purposes)
9. Delayed
Payment
FIDIC’S
CLAUSE
INCRE
-ASED
DELAY
2.4
3.5
INCRE
-ASED
CLAIM




DE
-CREASED
QUALITY
INCRE
-ASED
COST
UN
-CLEAR
RIGHTS






7.6


9.1


5.4

12.3
14.1
11. Notice to
Correct
15.1
12. Employer’s
Risks
17.3


13.8
10. Right to Vary










UNAVOID
-ABLE
BREACH OF
CONTRACT



4.11
4.15
INCRE
-ASED
RISK


Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand
Table 2 Effect of the Inadequate Provisions of BBBE Contract(Cont.)
TOPIC
FIDIC’S
CLAUSE
13. Release from
Performance
under the Law
14. Claims,
Disputes and
Arbitration(disp
ute resolution
process)
15. Procedure for
Claims
19.7
INCRE
-ASED
DELAY
INCRE
-ASED
RISK
INCRE
-ASED
CLAIM


DE
-CREASED
QUALITY
INCRE
-ASED
COST
UNAVOID
-ABLE
BREACH OF
CONTRACT


20
UN
-CLEAR
RIGHTS


20.1
Without provision concerning the employer’s entitlement to termination for convenience,
the employer has no choice better than breaching the contract by terminating it when various
things that can imperil a project happen(Jervis, 1988).
INADEQUACIES
OF CONTRACT
PROVISIONS
Excepted Risks
RISK
Claims, Disputes and
Arbitration
Release from Performance under the Law
CLAIM,
DISPUTE &
TERMINATION
INCREASED
DELAY
INCREASED
RISK
TIME
Unforeseeable Sub-Surface Conditions
INCREASED
CLAIM
Progress Report
COST &
PAYMENT
Dipute
High Contingencies
Extension of Contract Period
Employer’s Representative to Attempt Agreement
Delayed Payment
TECHNICAL
PROVISION &
GENERAL
MANAGEMENT
QUALITY
Project Failure
Project Failure
Dispute
DECREASED
QUALITY
Dispute
Dispute
Project Failure
Employer’s Entitlement to Termination
Ownership of Plant and Materials
Dipute
Dispute
Contractor’s Obligations to Test on
Completion
Notice to Correct
Right to Vary
Technical Standards and Regulations
COMPLICATION
IN BBBE
PROJECT
CAUSE
EFFECT
Claim
Dispute
EMPLOYER
Termination by the Employer
OTHER
CAUSES
IMPERFECTION
CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT
Dispute
Dispute
CONSULTANT
OTHER
EFFECT
Dispute
INCREASED
COST (TO THE
CONTRACTOR)
UNAVOIDABLE
BREACH OF
CONTRACT
UNCLEAR RIGHT
AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
Fig. 1 Cause-Effect Diagram Showing Inadequacies in BBBE Contract and Their Effects
Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand
Although the majority of the negative effects caused by the said inadequate contract
provisions do not obviously appear in the real design and construction phrases,
some problems in BBBE project seems to happen from these inadequacies. The specified
results of the employer’s failure to provide rights of way to the contractor in the “Excepted
Risks” provision caused heavy burden to the employer. The right of the consultant(as the
employer’s representative) to determine the additional payment to the contractor seems to be
so unilateral that the employer can not reach the agreement with such high payment.
In addition, the problem of the absent “Dispute Adjudication Board” provision extended the
dispute resolution period and increased the damage occurred.
It should be noted that there are also other factors that contribute to BBBE project’s
contractual complications, the discussion of which is beyond the scope of the present paper.
CONCLUSION
The adequacy problems of the Bang Na-Bang Pli-Bang Pakong Expressway
Project(BBBE)’s design-build contract can be categorized as the absence of significant
clauses, and inappropriateness of contract clauses. Twelve significant provisions are absent
comprising four technical provision & general management related sub-clauses, two quality
related sub-clauses, two time related sub-clauses, one cost & payment related sub-clause,
one risk related sub-clause, and two claim/dispute & termination related sub-clauses.
Four existing provisions are found to be significant inadequate provisions. These are the
provisions related to the right to vary the work, the dispute resolution procedure, the excepted
risks, and the determination of additional payment & time extension. These inadequacies
may lead to increased delay, increased risk, increased claim, decreased the quality, unclear
rights & responsibilities, and unavoidable breach of contract.
BBBE project provides an example of how an inadequately prepared contract can
aggravate the already difficult situation in the construction process. In adopting the
design-build contract, the employer should deliberately scrutinize the contract provisions in
several aspects : the availability of the significant contract clauses, the content of the
provisions especially those related to important contractual processes such as allocation of
risks & responsibilities between parties, payment, tests & taking over of works, defect
liability, variation order, termination, insurance, claim, and dispute resolution process.
A little more time and cost utilized in the review process can significantly transform the
project into one with reduced construction cost, reduced disputes & lawsuits, and with the
technological prowess, all these being the expected benefits of design-build contracts.
REFERENCES
Beard, Jeffrey L. (2001). Design-Build : Planning Through Development. New York : Mc Graw-Hill.
Bowcock, John. (November 2000). The Engineer Claims and the Dispute Adjudication Board. www.fidic.org.
Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand(ETA). (1995). Contract for the Design and Construction of
Bang Na-Bang Pli-Bang Pakong Expressway Project. Bangkok : ETA.
 

Federation
Internationale des Ingenieurs-Conseils.
(1995). Condition of Contract for Design-Build and Turnkey.
First Edition. Lausanne : FIDIC.
 

Federation
Internationale des Ingenieurs-Conseils.
(1999). Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design-Build
for Electrical and Mechanical Plant and for Building and Engineering Works Designed by the Contractor.
First Edition. Lausanne : FIDIC.
Jervis, Bruce M.. (1988). Construction Law: Principles and Practice. New York : McGraw-Hill.
Kunishima, Masahiko. (1996). The Principles of Construction Management. Tokyo : Sankaido Publishing.
SEARCH FOR OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand