| Summary: | The research aims to investigate the performance of the construction contract and its application. The study focuses on the Lump Sum Turnkey Contract (LSTK); in particular, the application of Libyan law to such contracts and how this compares with English Law, taking account of formal contractual documents, notably the Joint Contracts Tribunal UK Forms of Construction Contract (JCT) , taking account of international practice (the FIDIC Conditions). Contracting methods, including DesignBid- Build, Design-Build, Lump Sum and LSTK provide the main focus for this study. The contractor's liabilities under LSTK for design and construction are also analysed. Variations relating to the scope of work in such contracts are investigated. Furthermore, changes in circumstances which are beyond the parties' control have also been examined. In addition, an investigation of the legal problems associated with the execution of construction contracts from a practical perspective are highlighted. The core concern of this study is to identify weaknesses, developments, similarities and differences between Libyan law, English law and international practice and to consider the shortcomings that affect execution of such contracts in the oil industry in Libya. Appropriate suggestions for addressing such weaknesses and finding new opportunities have been have been made to develop the Libyan Civil Code (LCC) and the standard conditions of construction contracts in current common use. Extensive review has been made of the literature and related materials. Selected samples of construction contracts in Azzawiya Oil Refining Company (ARC) Libya in particular, have been studied as practical points of reference. Statistics on LSTK and variations in the major Libyan oil companies were collected and discussed. The findings indicate that the regulations governing construction contracts are limited within Libyan law, and the number of variations in oil construction contracts are high. Certain conditions (clauses) of construction contract forms are in contradiction with the provisions of the LCC and international practice. The conclusion is that some modifications and changes are required in the LCC, and that particular clauses of standard forms require to be amended.
|
|---|
