Session : 2019/20 Semester : 2
Module Number : BSM 135 Module Title : International Construction Contracts CW (e.g. C1, C2, C3) : C1 Submission date: 24 time Module Co-ord : Dr nte Feedback return :
Coursework must be submitted via the electronic drop-box for the module on Campus Moodle.
Academic writing & plagiarism
Before submitting assignments, you should check through it to ensure that:
• all material identified as originally from a previously published source has been properly attributed by the inclusion of an appropriate reference in the text;

• direct quotations are marked as such (using “quotation marks” at the beginning and end of the selected text), and

• a citation has been included in the list of references at the end of the text.
This is really important in order to demonstrate that you composed your work in your own words and that you complied with the academic standard on referencing your source material (OSCOLA). Thereby, you ensure that you avoid what the university terms as ‘plagiarism’:
Plagiarism is the practice of presenting the thoughts, writings or other output of another or others as original, without acknowledgement of their source(s). All material used to support a piece of work, whether a printed publication or from electronic media, should be appropriately identified and referenced and should not normally be copied directly unless as an acknowledged quote. Text translated into the words of the individual student should in all cases acknowledge the source.
Additionally, the Law School interprets ‘self-plagiarism’ as re-using in a coursework your own work that has previously been submitted for assessment in this or another course. It is not permitted, and this will be reflected in the mark awarded.
If you are struggling with composing your coursework, or academic writing in general, there is a lot of assistance available by the Student Advice and Support Team. For further information please see http://www.rgu.ac.uk/student-life/student-advice-and-support/study-support/academic-writing
Note on penalties, extension and deferral requests
You must include a statement on the front cover of your work that gives the word count. Adhering to the word count for coursework is an important element of the assessment criteria, as it acts as a parameter applicable for all students.
Any student who uses 10% more or less words than the word count will have a marking penalty applied. The penalty will be to move the work down by way of a deduction of 5% points from their mark (not 5% of the mark they have achieved). Thus, work that was 65% will be reduced to 60% (not 61.75%). If the deduction takes the work below a grading threshold (i.e. A to B; B to C etc.) then the grade for that component will reflect the lower mark. Work which far exceeds the word count (that is, is far in excess of 10%) will not meet the assessment criteria and this will be reflected in the mark awarded.
Poor grammar and spelling, as well as poor referencing, can impede communication/the-academic quality of your discussion, and may negatively impact on your overall mark.
Please note that coursework submitted late without prior extension is failed. If you, for genuine reasons, are unable to meet the submission date, please note the following procedures, as per the university’s Fit to Sit Policy, found at: http://www.rgu.ac.uk/about/academic-affairs/quality-assurance-and-regulations/academic-regulations-studentforms/academic-regulations-student-forms/ Please make sure to follow the instructions at the web address above.
PG students should submit their extension or deferral requests to the following email address: studentrequestabspg@rgu.ac.uk
Course-Specific Coursework Instructions/Guidelines
1. The maximum overall word limit is 3,750 words. You are allowed to deviate from this up to a maximum of +/-10% of the specified word limit. Each submission must include a word count. The limit must be adhered to; otherwise, the above penalty will apply. For the avoidance of doubt, words in footnotes must be included in the coursework word limit. Headings, tables of statutes & cases, bibliography and appendices are excluded. All other items not expressly excluded here are to be included in the word limit.
2. Footnotes should be used mainly for referencing and should contain as little text as possible.
3. Coursework is assessed according to the criteria in the Postgraduate grading grid, which can be found in the relevant Module Handbook and on Moodle.

4. 5. The completed coursework assignment must be submitted, prior to the submission deadline (above), via an electronic Turnitin drop-box set up in the study area for this module on Campus Moodle. Re-submissions are allowed until the due date. Please note that originality report generation for resubmissions is subject to a twenty-four hour delay. Completed coursework submissions should not under any circumstances be directly emailed to the module lecturer. The email facility for lecturers at RGU is not resourced to handle emails with large attachments. Such emails will be deleted on arrival.
6. OSCOLA standard of citation must be followed throughout the coursework
except as modified by the instructions in this document. Footnotes must be included in the coursework. A bibliography must appear at the end of the coursework; there should be only one bibliography for the whole coursework and it must contain all relevant materials consulted by the student.
7. We will enforce the rules on plagiarism strictly (see above). Additional Course specific guidance
is provided here:
http://bit.ly/rgulawacademichonesty

8. The University’s Academic regulations and the Course Handbook also contain relevant rules and regulations governing this coursework and students ought to make themselves familiar with their contents.
Module-Specific Coursework Instructions/Guidelines (a) No specific word limit is assigned to each component of the assessment. Please feel free to allocate word limits to each component as appropriate. Kindly ensure that your total word count for all assessment components adheres to the word limit above (i.e. 3750 words +/- 10%).
Scenario Forecasters Construction Limited (FCL), a Singaporean construction company, ventured into the UK construction market two years ago. The first project won by the group was a privately financed multi-purposed housing development in Aberdeen under the NEC4 ECC Contract Option A (without amendment save as is expressly mentioned in this scenario). Although very well known for their expertise in the use of FIDIC contracts in Singapore, this was the first time FCL had used the NEC4 ECC contract. According to the Contract data, the Client and the Contractor were to share design responsibilities. Part I of the Contract Data set out clearly each party’s responsibilities. FCL employed Accurate Designers to produce the required drawings. These were reviewed and approved by the designers engaged by the Client. Construction work commenced in mid-2019 and for the ensuing six months, FCL struggled to cope with the contract administration demands under the NEC4 ECC contract. FCL are used to the FIDIC terms, contractual language and approach. When it comes to the NEC4, they are particularly baffled by the extension of time and variation procedures under the NEC4 ECC contract. The project team from Singapore had heard of the NEC4 ECC contract but had assumed that they would be familiar with the processes, after all, both the FIDIC and the NEC contract forms have English origin and are for ‘big’ construction.
Recently, the Project Manager had requested a quote in relation to a change event. Soon after the process for dealing with the quotes under the NEC4 ECC had been concluded, it became obvious to officials of FCL that the ‘estimates’ used were woefully inadequate. They are hoping that the work will be re-measured and valued at completion and the figures adjusted. On a related matter, the outcome of a compensation event process led by the Project Manager had taken a different view from FCL and ‘tweaked’ FCL’s provisional figures. FCL disagree with the outcome of the process and has recently commenced adjudication proceedings. In the course of the adjudication process, FCL have obtained the actual costs of the compensation events. These figures are higher than the provisional estimates previously provided to the Project Manager at the time of assessment. FCL sought
to have the actual cost acknowledged and considered but the Adjudicator has hinted to them that, ‘that is not how the NEC4 ECC operates’. FCL do not understand what the adjudicator meant by this statement. There are other ‘claims’ outstanding from last year that FCL are yet to bring to the attention of the Project Manager. Most of these were ‘claims’ relating to events arising from Project Manager and Supervisor instructions.
QUESTION
1. To help FCL out of this ‘quicksand’, critically assess and explain the approaches to change management, especially how the change is valued/assessed, under the NEC4 ECC and the FIDIC Red Book, 2017. Remember to compare and contrast the two approaches. [60% Weighting]

2. Identify and critically examine the contractual issues in the above scenario relating to change management and more specifically, the operation of the compensation event procedure under the NEC4 ECC. Remember to use authorities to support your analysis. [40% Weighting]