Frequently challenged determinations of the engineer in Sri Lankan construction contracts

Abstract

A sustainable procurement system should be capable of delivering a project free of disputes in its ideal perspective. However, disputes seem to be inevitable in construction projects resulting from its complex nature and involvement of different players in a temporary team setup which are conducive for conflicts. Thus, effective strategies to minimize disputes are the best potential contribution towards sustainability. In general, the Engineer is responsible to resolute the conflict since almost all the construction contracts empower the Engineer to give his fair determination in such situations. Better performance of Engineer’s fair determination function would no doubt prevent the increase of project costs and time, by avoiding frequent dispute resolution referrals, and eventually minimize the resulting inefficiencies. In that scenario, the Engineer plays an extremely important role in a construction project. However, requirement of giving fair determination of the Engineer has been often debated in recent times. Engineer’s determinations are often challenged devaluing the role of Engineer and putting the parties to lose their money on expensive dispute resolution procedures. This research was focused on identifying the situations where Engineer’s determination is challenged in Sri Lankan context. The study was based on a documentary survey and finds that most frequently challenged decisions are related to adjustment for cost escalation, delayed instructions and fixing rates for variations. The findings are useful in formulating strategies to minimize such instances.