国际建设工程风险分析risk-analysis-of-the-international-construction-project.doc

毕业设计（论文）外文文献翻译xxx工学院 毕业设计（论文）外文文献翻译国际建设工程风险分析保罗 斯坦福 库帕库娃娜工程造价卷 第五十一期 2009年9月9日摘要：此次分析用实例研究方法分析津巴布韦标准协会总部（SAZ）的屋顶部分坍塌的问题。特别是，它审查了建设专业队伍发挥的事先作用。分析显示，津巴布韦标准协会总部的传统建筑工程普遍具有高风险的特点。一个明显失败的迹象，是由原告所声称的承包商和建筑师们在预防和/或缓解可能发生的建设问题上是失败的。推断在部分屋顶坍塌之前两者之间的缺陷应该及早发现并及时纠正是合理。原告有理由对承包者和建筑师双方带来的疏忽索赔看来是合乎情理的。风险分析，通过多方位方法分析建设问题的决定性查问，使有效风险管理策略对失败建设问题的鉴定容易。越强调服务的重点，委托方的要求越来越高，挑剔越来越多，并不太愿意接受没有赔偿的风险。委托方不想要惊喜，并且当事情出现问题更可能去诉讼。关键词：仲裁，索赔，建设，合同，诉讼，工程和风险加强的混凝土构件的结构设计由KP咨询工程师设计。工料测量服务由HLB提供。该合同授予非洲中心建筑公司（CABCO），该公司也负责提供采用专利的“四人帮钉”屋架屋顶结构。建筑建设完工后，于1991年9月12日移交给业主。津巴布韦标准协会总部实际接受了对没有占有证书的总部房屋的占有。另外，不合格责任期只有3个月。屋顶结构在1999年12月局部坍塌前已经用了10年。该房屋并不在保险范围内，哈拉雷城市，一个政府自治区, 10年之后下发了占有证书,并且是在部分屋顶坍塌之后。起初津巴布韦标准协会总部决定去仲裁, 但未能产生一个即时的解决办法。津巴布韦标准协会总部然后决定在法庭上进行对簿，并且因为非洲中心建筑公司的疏忽向非洲中心建筑公司索赔。准备为仲裁再次诉讼。津巴布韦标准协会总部的量化损失大约为600万津巴布韦币（折合120万美元）。所有当事人都已检查了这个事实，并且在他们证明之前，很明显有一个很大的可能那就是法院也许裁定建筑师和施工方都有责任。正是在这个阶段，被告的律师请求将这个问题达成庭外和解。原告同意了这项建议，并同意对和解的条款保密。此项重要分析的目的是围绕住房标准分析津巴布韦协会总部房屋的部分屋顶坍塌问题。此项分析调查了工程管理的作用和建设专业人士在预防/缓解潜在的建设问题中发挥的重要作用。它进一步对雇主/承包方和当事人在建设合同下弥补损害赔偿进行了评估。这种重要的分析的主要目的是确定一种未来建设工程风险管理的有效策略。这项研究的重要性在于它多方面的审查方式。经验表明，一个工程的参与者以自己的经验为基础也能够很好的识别出风险。仅采用建立在过去的经验和判断的基础上的风险管理方法，可以很好地并合理地在稳定的低风险环境中工作。在有变化的地方这是不可能有效的。这是因为需要改变以往的经验推断，这可能会产生误导。所有建设工程都在一定程度上暗示原型和改变。建筑行业本身的变化表明，过去的经验是不可能自行足够的。一个结构化的方法是必需的。这种结构不能，并且绝对不能取代参与者的经验和专业知识。相反，它带来额外的好处，帮助澄清了目标，确定了不确定性的性质，介绍了有效的沟通制度，提高了决策，介绍了有效的风险控制措施，保障了项目目标和提供了风险教训知识。建筑专业人员需要知道如何用他们具体的合同，财务，业务和组织需求平衡不可预见的风险。许多建筑专业人士鼠目寸光的看个人的风险，并且没有意识到其他相关的风险可能对他们的业务产生潜在影响。用全面的风险管理方法，能使一个公司确定该组织的业务的所有风险。用总风险排除的最大目标，会增加减轻风险的概率。为未来的建筑工程推荐的关键建设风险策略已经被考虑，并且它们的解释如下。Hinchey J.W.声称在一个高利润的工程中不可能存在风险分配问题的最佳实践标准，任何工程都是这样的。他说，相反的，成功的风险管理是一种心态也是一个过程。根据Hinchey，对一个特定的项目，理想的心态的当事人及其代表者，首先在有意的关于工程项目风险识别中，然后是在发展系统和理解的过程中，通过合同避免，缓解，管理和最终分配这些风险的最佳方式。据说这个过程需要以一种科学形式开始并且以一种艺术形式结束。根据D. Atkinson，无论承包商还是顾问，正确的团队需要集合有关的多学科经验的项目特殊类型和位置。这被认为是必要的，不仅仅允许其他反应加以探讨。而且，以确保正确的问题被问和主要风险被鉴定。能源危机首长据说对项目的部分参与者提供一个方便的结构化风险识别的方法。有效的风险管理据说还需要多学科的方法。不可避免的风险管理需要工程，法律和相关保险检查。据指出，以统计方法为基础的分析技术应广泛应用在决策制定上。这些技术被认为与许多风险事件的后果的估计有关，而不是如何实现风险的分担。此外，在风险管理的发展阶段，阿特金森（Atkinson）声称制定重大决策而不能仅仅基于数学分析的状态。建设工程的复杂性意味着，无论在物理形态还是组织结构上将项目定义为仅考虑相对较小数目的风险。据说这则一般的结构化方法，可以适用于任何建设工程，以增加参与者的认识。新的、简化的建筑设计和建设管理办法（CDM条例），已于2007年4月在英国生效，修订和汇集了CDM1994规范和建设健康安全和福利（CHSW）1996规范，而成为单一规范包。新的建筑设计和建设管理办法提供了一个健康和安全性能的逐步改变的机会，被用于再次强调健康，安全和良好的管理和协调以达到建设健康和安全管理更广泛的商业利益的方法。我相信，这些技能的发展对业主提供最有效的便利服务是必要，使发展最佳价值的项目成为可能。建设风险管理（简称CM at Risk），与建立工程承包私营部门的方法类似，很受公共部门的欢迎。这是一个过程，允许业主选择一个建立在资格基础上的建设管理者（简称CM）；建立一个合作工程团队；在建筑合同下集中工程责任；取得最高价格保证；产生更多可管理，可预测的工程；节省时间和金钱，并减少对业主，建筑师和建设管理者的风险。建设风险管理，对建设更专业的方法，正在随着设计建造，桥的设计和投标建造为项目执行过程中建立的方法的改变而改变传统的地位。工程师可以浏览项目管理者的工作方法，并提供有益的建议。在完成合同文件之间允许项目管理者让分包商投标或提供建议，最高保证价格（GMP），从而降低了建设管理者的风险，并提供有益的投入设计。该过程对所有相关者更有条理，易于管理，可预测和减少风险。这使得工程采购也更加务实。每个行业的承包商没有竞标购物的恐惧，公平目标是成为低投标人。每个人都必须提供最好地项目。社会的竞争是比较公平的：所有分包商有一个公平的工作目标。不可预见费包含在最高保证价中，涵盖了意想不到的但是合乎情理的费用，在最高保证价以上的不可预见费允许为业主改变。只要分包商在最高保证价内它们就被偿还给建设管理者，因此建设管理者代表业主和分包商谈判变更事项。在项目里每一方单独投保存在类似的问题。因为这个原因，工程保险是被推荐的。传统的方法增加了反对的态度，甚至提供给人们忽略或者隐瞒风险的动机，以企图避免或者转移责任。许多项目中的业主不理解他们在促进合作与协调中担当的重要性角色；没有与设计师、制造商、供应商、承包商进行讨论设计就已经完成了。这意味着，设计师不能利用供应商或承包商的房建能力或维护要求以及影响可持续性、总成本,或健康和安全知识。推断它们之间的缺陷应该在部分屋顶坍塌之前及早发现并及时纠正是合理的。因此原告对承包者和建筑师疏忽的索赔是理所当然的。这种风险分析能够更容易，通过它的多方位方法对建设问题做重要的检查，为未来建设项目做一个有效的风险管理策略的鉴定。这项工作还有助于强调一点，就是业主的要求越来越高，挑剔越来越多，并不太愿意接受没有赔偿的风险。他们不想要惊喜，而且更可能在出问题时进行诉讼。Risk Analysis of the International Construction ProjectBy: Paul Stanford KupakuwanaCost Engineering Vol. 51/No. 9 September 2009ABSTRACT ：This analysis used a case study methodology to analyse the issues surrounding the partial collapse of the roof of a building housing the headquarters of the Standards Association of Zimbabwe (SAZ). In particular, it examined the prior roles played by the team of construction professionals. The analysis revealed that the SAZs traditional construction project was generally characterized by high risk. There was a clear indication of the failure of a contractor and architects in preventing and/or mitigating potential construction problems as alleged by the plaintiff. It was reasonable to conclude that between them the defects should have been detected earlier and rectified in good time before the partial roof failure. It appeared justified for the plaintiff to have brought a negligence claim against both the contractor and the architects. The risk analysis facilitated, through its multi-dimensional approach to a critical examination of a construction problem, the identification of an effective risk management strategy for future construction projects. It further served to emphasize the point that clients are becoming more demanding, more discerning, and less willing to accept risk without recompense. Clients do not want surprise, and are more likely to engage in litigation when things go wrong.KEY WORDS: Arbitration, claims, construction, contracts, litigation, project and riskThe structural design of the reinforced concrete elements was done by consulting engineers Knight Presold (KP). Quantity surveying services were provided by Hawkins, Leshnick & Bath (HLB). The contract was awarded to Central African Building Corporation (CABCO) who was also responsible for the provision of a specialist roof structure using patented “gang nail” roof trusses. The building construction proceeded to completion and was handed over to the owners on Sept. 12, 1991. The SAZ took effective occupation of the headquarters building without a certificate of occupation. Also, the defects liability period was only three months.The roof structure was in place 10 years before partial failure in December 1999. The building insurance coverage did not cover enough, the City of Harare, a government municipality, issued the certificate of occupation 10 years after occupation, and after partial collapse of the roof.At first the SAZ decided to go to arbitration, but this failed to yield an immediate solution. The SAZ then decided to proceed to litigate in court and to bring a negligence claim against CABCO. The preparation for arbitration was reused for litigation. The SAZs quantified losses stood at approximately $ 6 million in Zimbabwe dollars (US $1.2m).After all parties had examined the facts and evidence before them, it became clear that there was a great probability that the courts might rule that both the architects and the contractor were liable. It was at this stage that the defendants lawyers requested that the matter be settled out of court. The plaintiff agreed to this suggestion, with the terms of the settlement kept confidential.The aim of this critical analysis was to analyse the issues surrounding the partial collapse of the roof of the building housing the HQ of Standard Association of Zimbabwe. It examined the prior roles played by the project management function and construction professionals in preventing/mitigating potential construction problems. It further assessed the extent to which the employer/client and parties to a construction contract are able to recover damages under that contract. The main objective of this critical analysis was to identify an effective risk management strategy for future construction projects. The importance of this study is its multidimensional examination approach.Experience suggests that participants in a project are well able to identify risks based on their own experience. The adoption of a risk management approach, based solely in past experience and dependant on judgment, may work reasonably well in a stable low risk environment. It is unlikely to be effective where there is a change. This is because change requires the extrapolation of past experience, which could be misleading. All construction projects are prototypes to some extent and imply change. Change in the construction industry itself suggests that past experience is unlikely to be sufficient on its own. A structured approach is required. Such a structure can not and must not replace the experience and expertise of the participant. Rather, it brings additional benefits that assist to clarify objectives, identify the nature of the uncertainties, introduces effective communication systems, improves decision-making, introduces effective risk control measures, protects the project objectives and provides knowledge of the risk history.Construction professionals need to know how to balance the contingencies of risk with their specific contractual, financial, operational and organizational requirements. Many construction professionals look at risks in dividually with a myopic lens and do not realize the potential impact that other associated risks may have on their business operations. Using a holistic risk management approach will enable a firm to identify all of the organizations business risks. This will increase the probability of risk mitigation, with the ultimate goal of total risk elimination.Recommended key construction and risk management strategies for future construction projects have been considered and their explanation follows. J.W. Hinchey stated that there is and can be no best practice standard for risk allocation on a high-profile project or for that matter, any project. He said, instead, successful risk management is a mind-set and a process. According to Hinchey, the ideal mind-set is for the parties and their representatives to, first, be intentional about identifying project risks and then to proceed to develop a systematic and comprehensive process for avoiding, mitigating, managing and finally allocating, by contract, those risks in optimum ways for the particular project. This process is said to necessarily begin as a science and ends as an art.According to D. Atkinson, whether contractor, consultant or promoter, the right team needs to be assembled with the relevant multi-disciplinary experience of that particular type of project and its location. This is said to be necessary not only to allow alternative responses to be explored. But also to ensure that the right questions are asked and the major risks identified. Heads of sources of risk are said to be a convenient way of providing a structure for identifying risks to completion of a participants part of the project. Effective risk management is said to require a multi-disciplinary approach. Inevitably risk management requires examination of engineering, legal and insurance related solutions.It is stated that the use of analytical techniques based on a statistical approach could be of enormous use in decision making. Many of these techniques are said to be relevant to estimation of the consequences of risk events, and not how allocation of risk is to be achieved. In addition, at the present stage of the development of risk management, Atkinson states that it must be recognized that major decisions will be made that can not be based solely on mathematical analysis. The complexity of construction projects means that the project definition in terms of both physical form and organizational structure will be based on consideration of only a relatively small number of risks. This is said to then allow a general structured approach that can be applied to any construction project to increase the awareness of participants.The new, simplified Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM Regulations) which came in to force in the UK in April 2007, revised and brought together the existing CDM 1994 and the Construction Health Safety and Welfare (CHSW) Regulations 1996, into a single regulatory package. The new CDM regulations offer an opportunity for a step change in health and safety performance and are used to reemphasize the health, safety and broader business benefits of a well-managed and co-ordinated approach to the management of health and safety in construction. I believe that the development of these skills is imperative to provide the client with the most effective services available, delivering the best value project possible.Construction Management at Risk (CM at Risk), similar to established private sector methods of construction contracting, is gaining popularity in the public sector. It is a process that allows a client to select a construction manager (CM) based on qualifications; make the CM a member of a collaborative project team; centralize responsibility for construction under a single contract; obtain a bonded guaranteed maximum price; produce a more manageable, predictable project; save time and money; and reduce risk for the client, the architect and the CM.CM at Risk, a more professional approach to construction, is taking its place along with design-build, bridging and the more traditional process of design-bid-build as an established method of project delivery.The AE can review the CMs approach to the work, making helpful recommendations. The CM is allowed to take bids or proposals from subcontractors during completion of contract documents, prior to the guaranteed maximum price (GMP), which reduces the CMs risk and provides useful input to design. The procedure is more methodical, manageable, predictable and less risky for all.The procurement of construction is also more business-like. Each trade contractor has a fair shot at being the low bidder without fear of bid shopping. Each must deliver the best to get the projec. Competition in the community is more equitable: all subcontractors have a fair shot at the work.A contingency within the GMP covers unexpected but justifiable costs, and a contingency above the GMP allows for client changes. As long as the subcontractors are within the GMP they are reimbursed to the CM, so the CM represents the client in negotiating inevitable changes with subcontractors.There can be similar problems where each party in a project is separately insured. For this reason a move towards project insurance is recommended. The traditional approach reinforces adversarial attitudes, and even provides incentives for people to overlook or conceal risks in an attempt to avoid or transfer responsibility. A contingency within the GMP covers unexpected but justifiable costs, and a contingency above the GMP allows for client changes. As long as the subcontractors are within the GMP they are reimbursed to the CM, so the CM represents the client in negotiating inevitable changes with subcontractors.There can be similar problems where each party in a project is separately insured. For this reason a move towards project insurance is recommended. The traditional approach reinforces adversarial attitudes, and even provides incentives for people to overlook or conceal risks in an attempt to avoid or transfer responsibility. It was reasonable to assume that between them the defects should have been detected earlier and rectified in good time before the partial roof failure. It did appear justified for the plaintiff to have brought a negligence claim against both the contractor and the architects.