Managing risks associated with the JBCC (principal building agreement) from the South African contractor’s perspective

Authors

  • Ayman Othman University of KwaZulu-Natal
  • Nishani Harinarain University of KwaZulu-Natal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.38140/as.v16i1.171

Keywords:

Contracts, Risk, JBCC (PBA), Framework, Correlation matrix, Contractor's risk source, South Africa

Abstract

Construction is a complex and risky business. It is a time-consuming process involving a multitude of organisations with different objectives and skills. In addition, increasing client expectations coupled with the technological development of materials and equipment made the construction industry subject to more risks than any other industry. Contracts are essential tools for organising the relationship between involved parties and managing associated risk. For years the South African construction industry had a very poor reputation in managing construction risks. In order to improve the image of the South African construction industry and to assist contractors to develop their proper risk management strategy, this article aims to manage the risks associated with the Joint Building Contracts Committees (JBCC) Principal Building Agreement (PBA). A research methodology, consisting of literature review, questionnaires and interviews, is designed to achieve four objectives. First, to review the topics of contacts and risks in construction projects and the JBCC (PBA). Secondly, to develop an innovative framework to enable contractors to identify, quantify and classify risks associated with the JBCC (PBA). Thirdly, to evaluate the developed framework from industry’s feedback in order to improve its performance. Finally, to create a correlation matrix of contractor’s risk sources.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

##submission.downloads##

Published

2009-06-30

How to Cite

Othman, A. and Harinarain, N. (2009) “Managing risks associated with the JBCC (principal building agreement) from the South African contractor’s perspective”, Acta Structilia, 16(1), pp. 83–120. doi: 10.38140/as.v16i1.171.

Issue

Section

Review articles