College of Engineering & Physical Sciences

Assignment Brief

EC2CMA Construction Contract Management and Coursework 2 (70%)

Administration 2
Lecturer details
Dr Gayan Wedawatta, h.wedawatta@aston.ac.uk
Assignment Brief/ Coursework Content:

Mr Joe and his wife Claire have commissioned a project to build a contemporary
new home. The new home ‘Hux Shard’ is designed by architect Mick O’Conner of
Squirrel Design Solutions Limited. It is built on a rural plot of land outside Exeter,
in Devon. The project is innovative and radically different from any existing
houses in the area and is intended to be a lasting legacy. The client and the
architect intend to create 'one of the greatest homes on the planet', with large
angled zinc shards being a key feature of the design. Due to its complex design,
innovative construction technology is required to deliver this project. Several
issues arise during project delivery that has significant impacts on the outcome of
the project. The case study of this project is available on
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/grand-designs/on-demand/65182-005
(Grand Designs, South Devon 2021).
Based on this video:
o Identify the contractual problems encountered in this project
o Critically review the contractual rights and entitlement of the parties
assuming this project is based on any JCT 2016 or NEC4 Standard
Building Contract (clearly identify which standard form contract has
been adopted).
o Discuss how the provisions made available within the contract could
have been used to better manage the problems encountered.
o Recommend a suitable dispute resolution option to the client should
they wish to pursue their rights.
You are to make sensible assumptions where required. Any assumptions made
to be clearly identified in the submission.

Descriptive details of Assignment:

• Preferred Format (Report, final copy PDF submitted on Blackboard)

• Document Title e.g. Firstname_Lastname_EC2CMA_Report 2
• Word Count: 2000 words max
• Preferred reference style: Harvard referencing
An introductory guide to citing references from Aston University Library:
https://www2.aston.ac.uk/migrated-assets/applicationpdf/current-students/34645-
LIS_citing_references.pdf
• Students will have an opportunity to seek formative feedback from the
lecturer during tutorial sessions ahead of the submission.

Recommended reading/ online sources:

• Joint Contracts Tribunal Limited (2016) Standard Building Contract 2016
Sweet & Maxwell Limited
 • Institution of Civil Engineeris (2017) NEC4 Engineering and Construction
Contract, Fourth edition. (2017). Thomas Telford Ltd.
• Joint Contracts Tribunal Limited (2016) Standard Building Contract 2016
Guide. Sweet & Maxwell Limited.
• Lupton, Sarah (2017) Guide to JCT Standard Building Contract 2016,
RIBA Publishing.
• Powell, Geoff (2016) Construction contract preparation and management:
from concept to completion, 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Eggleston, Brian (2019) The NEC4 engineering and construction contract :
a commentary. Third edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Browse/Home/Practice/Constr
uction?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&comp=pluk
• www.neccontract.com
• https://www.squirrel-design.co.uk/projects/hux-shard-paragraph-55-
dwelling/
• https://www.huxshard.uk/paragraph-55/hux-shard-paragraph-55/

Key Dates:

25/10/2021 Coursework set

14/12/2020; 16.00 (4.00pm) Submission date and time
25/01/2021 Expected feedback return date. Feedback
to be provided via Blackboard.

Submission Details:

• How to submit the assignment – Online on Blackboard (Turnitin

submission link available within the ‘Assessment submission’ tab

Checklist to help students complete submissions:

List of requirements students should check against e.g.

• Are all tasks addressed?
• Have you provided citations within text?
• Have you referenced correctly?
• Is your report well structured?
• Have you used correct formatting?

Marking Criteria:

• Identification and a brief description of project problems/risks (10%)

• Critical analysis of contractual rights and entitlements of parties including
reference to relevant contract clauses, case law, statute and literature
(30%)
• Analysis of how the problems could have been better managed using
provisions made available within the contract (30%)
• Review of suitable dispute resolution mechanism (10%)
• Overall conclusions and recommendations (10%)
• Citations and Referencing, and Overall
style/structure/grammar/presentation (10%)
Marking Rubric:
• See table of generic performance descriptors below
 Marking Criteria
Problem identification 10%
(Identification and description of
project problems/risks)
Rights and entitlements 30%
(Critical analysis of contractual rights
and entitlements of parties including
reference to relevant case law, statute
and literature)
Hindsight 30%
(Analysis of how the problems could
have been better managed using
provisions made available within the
contract)
Dispute resolution 10%
(Review of dispute resolution
mechanism under this contract)
Conclusions and recpmmendations 10%
(Quality of overall conclusions and
recommendations)
Levels of Achievement
Inadequate Adequate Competent Good Very good - Outstanding
0 to 39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-100%
Poor or incorrect Adequate identification Reasonable identification Good identification and Very good to outstanding
identification and and description of some of and description of most description of most identification and
description of project the project problems/risks project problems/risks project problems/risks. description of all relevant
problems/risks project problems/risks. No
key issue has been missed.
Poor analysis of Adequate analysis of Reasonable analysis of Critical analysis of Highly critical analysis of
contractual rights and contractual rights and contractual rights and contractual rights and contractual rights and
entitlements of parties. entitlements of parties entitlements of parties entitlements of parties entitlements of parties
No or little reference to including reference to including reference to including reference to including reference to
relevant clauses and relevant clauses, case law, relevant clauses, case law, relevant clauses, case law, relevant clauses, case law,
case law. Many erroes statute and literature. But statute and literature. statute and literature. statute and literature. No
and inconsistencies in some inconsistencies Limited inconsistencies in Minimal inconsistencies in inconsistencies in the
interpretation of evident. the interpretation of the interpretation of interpretation of relevant
contractual/legal relevant clauses etc. relevant clauses etc. Some clauses etc. Have gone
provisions. attempt made to beyond textual discussion
represent the analysis to represent the analysis.
graphically.
Poor discussion of how Adequate discussion of Reasonable discussion of Good discussion of how Very good to outstanding
the problems could have how the problems could how the problems could the problems could have discussion of how the
been better managed have been better managed have been better been better managed problems could have been
using provisions of the using provisions of the managed using provisions using provisions of the better managed using
contract. Many of the contract. Some of the key of the contract. Some contract. Minimal provisions of the contract.
key relevant contractual contractual provisions not inconsistencies in inconsistencies in Contractual provisions
provisions have been identified and/or interpretation of interpretation of correctly interpreted and
missed and many errors misinterpreted. contractual provisions contractual provisions no significant provision
and inconsistencies in with some of the key with most key provisions omitted.
interpretation of provisions discussed. identified.
contractual provisions.
Very good to outstanding
Weak review of dispute Adequate review of Competent review of Good review of dispute
review of dispute
resolution options and dispute resolution options dispute resolution options resolution options and
resolution options and
processes under this and processes under this and processes under this processes under this
processes under this
contract contract. contract contract
contract.
No or very weak Fair conclusions provided Reasonable conclusions Good conclusions Robust and authoritative
conclusions provided. but lacks consistency with provided reflecting on the provided, consistent with conclusions provided.
preceding discussions. preceding discussions. the preceding discussions.
Referencing and Presentation 10% Very good range of
Good range of
(Quantity and quality of citations and authoritative sources and
authoritative sources and
referencing. Overall Number of good sources case law cited. Very good
Inadequate number of Adequate number of good case law cited. Good
style/structure/grammar/presentation) and case law cited. referencing standards.
sources, poor sources and case law cited. referencing standards.
Acceptable referencing Very good overall style,
referencing standards. Inconsistent referencing Good overall style,
standards. Competent structure, grammar and
Poor overall style, standards. Adequate structure, grammar and
overall style, structure, presentation. No
structure, grammar and overall style, structure, presentation. Minimal
grammar and inconsistencies evident.
presentation. Many grammar and presentation. inconsistencies evident.
presentation. Some Innovative and graphical
errors evident. Some errors evident. Some attempt to
inconsistencies evident. approach to presenting /
represent key analysis
highlighting contractual
graphically.
analysis.