Managing inconsistencies in condition of engagement of an architect in design-build procurement

Abstract

The Client, especially the Malaysian Public Sectors has commonly been using the Standard Condition of Engagement (COE) of an Architect stipulated in the Architects Act 1967 (Act 117) & Rules. It set the terms for Architect’s appointment in any construction projects. However, this is only applicable in the traditional procurement method as the Architect is appointed by the Client. Design-Build (DB) procurement which has been widely used in Malaysia offered a different method of Architect’s appointment. The Architect is appointed by the DB Contractor instead of the Client and the agency concept is claimed to be compromised. Currently, there is no standard COE of an Architect appointment under DB procurement in Malaysia as practiced in United Kingdom. Thus, the terms in the standard COE tend to be modified to serve the needs and requirements of the DB Contractor. This study deliberates a comprehensive discussion on the modification made to the salient terms of standard COE of an Architect in DB procurement in order to identify risks related to the inconsistencies. This paper employed (1) Documentary Analysis and (2) semi structured interviews on personnel from three different case studies in identifying inconsistencies of terms in the COE. The findings in this paper highlighted on the most modified salient terms of the COE of the three selected DB projects and the risks associated to the modification. The results of this study will be beneficial to stakeholders in the DB procurement especially Architect in understanding and managing inconsistencies in the COE.