Civil Engineering Administration Essay

Engineering Administration Introduction A NZ quality developer PROFIT proposed to develop an office building in Beijing, The Republic of China. This requires the manipulation of FIDIC Conditions of Contracts for Construction (i. e. the 1999 carmine Book) which is different in the struggle resolution mechanisms equation to the local NZS 39102003 Conditions of Contract. Objective The primary objective of this report is to comp ar the variation in the dispute resolution mechanisms among the 1999 Red Book and the NZS 39102003 Conditions of Contract.The blink of an eye objective is to give critical comments to the dispute resolution mechanisms in these 2 standards. Tables and flow charts Discussion There are many difference of opinions in the dispute resolution mechanisms amidst the 1999 Red Book and the NZS 39102003 Condition of Contracts. Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the flow of structure for dispute in twain 1999 Red Book and NZS 39102003. The predicts show that the general flow path surrounded by the two acts is uniform. For both acts, the manoeuver that is responsible for the contract is always the first person (party) to be referred to.If the machinate gitnot solve the dispute, both acts urge on a order of dispute resolution (by a neutral third party) forward referring to arbitration. Arbitration is the last method of dispute resolution that can be used for both acts, the decision from arbitration is c all in all an award and vertebral column and enforceable to both the clients and the contractors. There are 5 major differences between 1999 Red Book and NZS 39102003. The differences are listed on table 1. The first difference is the difference in leads position and engineers response. In the 1999 Red Book, the engineer is an employee of the client.The response of the engineer can be regard as the response of the client to the contractor (Cl 20. 1). In the NZS 39102003, the engineer is a third neutral party responsible for the contract. The decision of the engineer is final and binding on when both the client and the contractor are satisfied. There is also an different small difference that the engineer can do while making engineers review between the two acts. It can make a connection with an agreed happy to make recommendations to assist to resolve the dispute with the consent of the client and the contractor.This is similar to adjudication, but with the involvement of the engineer. The second difference is the difference in engagement of the engineer to give it decision to the dispute. In 1999 Red Book, the engineer essential give it response to the contractor within 42 days later on receiving the claim to obey the law. In the NZS39102003, the engineer is expect to give a response to the dispute in 20 working days. However, the engineer whitethorn choose to not give any decision within the sequence limit which is not against the law.In this role, the client and the contractor could refer to other adjudication process to resolve the dispute. The third difference is the difference in the recommended method of dispute resolution to take before referring to arbitration. The 1999 Red Book recommend to referred to dispute adjudication board. The NZS39102003 recommend to referring to a mediator. The dispute adjudication board is panel of experient and expertised reviewer which is organised before the construction begins and meets at the job invest periodically.There, the reviewer in the dispute adjudication board is familiar with the job role and progress. The mediator is an independent neutral third party which acts as the case manager and the facilitator of the dispute. The mediator does not have to be expertise and it does not have previous relationship with the contract before the mediation undertaken. The tail difference is that in there is an extra obligated process which is mandatory to be undertaken in the 1999 Red Book but not in the NZS 39102003.Clause 20. 5 in the 1999 Red Book indicates that before gradation of arbitration, both parties shall attempt to settle the dispute amicable. In the NZS 39102003 There is no similar regulations. The fifth difference is the difference between the travail dates for all the steps in the dispute resolution procedure in figure 1 and figure 2. The 1999 Red Book has specified clearly the restriction time. The NZS39102003 use working days and sometimes months in it regulations.For example, the restriction on the submission date for contractors claim is within 28 days in 1999 Red Book after he became or should have induce aware of the eventthe restriction date of the same situation in NZS 39102003 is 1 month. Obviously, the clear number of days used in the 1999 Red Book is more formal and precise than the use of month in the NZS 39102003. In some other step, the NZS 39102003 sometimes use working days. For example, the engineer review shall give a formal decision within 20 working days (clause 13. 2. 4). The use of working days is