Avoiding and Mitigating Delay and Disruption Claims Conflict: Role of Precontract Negotiation

Delay and disruption claims often generate conflict and contract dispute in the delivery of building and civil engineering projects. If construction delay claims conflict can be avoided or mitigated, there could be substantial financial savings on projects. This study explores the effect of precontract negotiation as a means of avoiding or mitigating delay and disruption claims conflict. The data collection instrument was a structured questionnaire administered face to face on 41 contractors’ personnel on 41 completed projects in Singapore. The data were analyzed using structural modeling with partial least squares estimation approach. The results indicate that when the contractors received an unfavorable outcome from the contract administrator’s decision on their claims for delay, the intensity of conflict was lower when there was precontract negotiation and precontract agreement regarding the rules for quantifying and assessing the impact of anticipated delays than when there was none. It was also discovered that the higher the level of precontract negotiation and precontract agreement on the rules for quantifying and assessing delays, the higher the contractors perceived the quality of the decision-making process for delay claims during the construction phase. Further, the higher the contractors perceived the quality of the decision-making process for delay claims, the lower the intensity of conflict. At the time of entering into contracts, owners and their project management team need to pay more attention to precontract negotiation and agreement with their contractor to clarify and agree on the rules for quantifying and assessing the impact of anticipated delay and disruption. Aspects that require precontract negotiation, agreement, and clarification include: the rules of evidence for claims, the record requirements for claims and the procedure for keeping the records, form of construction program including the software for the preparation of the program and the procedure updating the program, the methodology for analyzing delay claims, formula for quantifying unabsorbed head office overhead component of prolongation cost, the method for quantifying disruption cost, the handling of concurrent delays, profit—whether claimable and the rate of profit to be paid, acceleration—circumstances under which it will be compensated and basis of compensation, and the question of who owns the float. These are, typically, not adequately covered by most standard forms of contracts. The agreements on these matters may be incorporated as part of partnering agreement or as a supplement to the contract agreement. Precontract negotiation, clarity, and agreements could produce instrumental and noninstrumental (social psychological) effects, which could facilitate delay and disruption claims assessment and their resolution. It could mitigate conflict even when the outcomes are unfavorable to a party.