A Study on Deadline of Completion Inspection in Public Projects

• Main Authors: Yi-Zhong Chen, 陳奕中
• Other Authors: none
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2007
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/49187174550291301660

碩士 === 逢甲大學 === 土木工程所 === 95 === The final purpose of the construction is to use it after “acceptance”. As to the time limit for acceptance in our system from the phase of construction completion confirmation, initial examination and re-examination to the phase of acceptance, each public sector will use the model contract for construction procurement established by the Public Construction Commission, Executive Yuan as a model. The above model contract of the Public Construction Commission, a supreme construction supervision institution, is only used for reference but it is commonly adopted by the central government and local units while making their construction procurement contracts. It is thus clear that it seems to have the force of constraint and the effect of influence as if the order. In comparison with the condition for construction issued by the Fédération Internationale Des Ingenieurs-Conseils (hereafter referred to as “FIDIC Red Book”), which is often used by international construction projects, the time-limit provision for our construction acceptance system is more reasonable. For such provision, the contractor can confirm a certain day to make inspections & examinations. And the engineer can complete inspections & examinations based on the provided time limit for acceptance so that he/she will not have any responsibility of overdue acceptance relatively and will not further cause a lot of overdue acceptance problems. Practically, it will make the time limit for acceptance become too long because there are still disputes over the contractor’s identification of construction completion, because the change of design has not been completed, because the initially examined defect has not been improved, because the contractor makes a claim for compensation on the owner, because the acceptance time of the owner is delayed, because the time for making the project completion drawing and the time for information delivery are delayed, or because of the processing of quantity calculation disputes and of other factors. Furthermore, for the terms of “Finishing of Construction” and “Completion of Construction” in practice, the contractor and the institution have different cognitions and knowledge, which will influence the operation procedure for acceptance. This research thinks that the finishing of construction and the completion of construction shall be same in order to reduce the differences between both cognitions that will influence the operation procedure for acceptance. For the aspect of overdue acceptance, it can be left as the responsibility of contractor, who shall take the responsibility for the delay and be liable for related penalties according to the contract, and as the responsibility of institution, who shall take responsibility of the overdue acceptance. However, in views of the construction contract of our public sectors, there is not any proclaimed penalty standard for the overdue acceptance and it is relatively unable to protect the contractor. Related penalty regulations and measures shall be set up in order to protect both contractor’ and institution’s rights and obligations to achieve the fairness of contract. From the analysis of statistical results in this case study, it is found that it can be seen sometimes that the procedure for initial examination (acceptance) cannot be completed in 37 days provided by the institution. Besides, the longer the time limit for contract fulfillment is, the longer the average days from the actual completion of construction to the beginning of acceptance tends to be. It is shown that there is correlation between the length of the time limit for contract fulfillment and the days necessary for its initial examination (acceptance). For the small-scale construction with a short time limit for contract fulfillment, it seems the time limit is too long and it is also unfair for the contractor if according to the 37-day time limit for acceptance. Therefore, it shall adopt the percentage of days for construction contract fulfillment additionally. Based on the statistical result in our case study, this research sets up a reasonable time limit for initial examination with reference to a reasonable maximum, about 15%-20% of the time limit for contract fulfillment, according to the size of cases. If the institution could not complete the acceptance in the provided time limit, it shall be deemed as the completion of initial examination (acceptance) or it shall adopt a more practical method according to the time limit provided by the acceptance clause of FIDIC (Red Book) in compliance with the requirement of practices, expecting it can be reference resources for the law amendment of authorities and the modification of model contract for construction procurement in future.