Intervention of the employer and employer’s appointed participants in the engineer’s role under the construction contract

Abstract

Construction projects are becoming very complex and large, which has led to multiple parties representing the interests of employers (clients), including an employer’s representative, a design consultant, a project manager, a cost consultant, etc., to be now involved in the organizational structures for projects. However, only one of these participants shall normally be appointed as the “Engineer”, whose role will be to carry out the administration of the construction contract on behalf of the Employer and to be the lead participant responsible for corresponding with the contracting company on most contractual issues. This research is aimed at addressing two questions of: who is best to take the lead in performing contract administration functions and be named as the Engineer? To this end, the research presents a brief categorization of the roles and functions expected to be fulfilled by the Engineer and a study of the pros and cons of assigning the hat of the Engineer to the project manager as opposed to assigning it – the traditional way – to the design consultant. The offered analysis can be viewed as an eye-opener for projects’ employers as to the considerations that could potentially be accounted for in figuring out how best to plan for having the roles of the Engineer fulfilled. The second question of how the authority of the Engineer, regardless of who is given the title of the Engineer, can be expected to get interfered by the presence of other possible participants on the project, including the Employer himself? This research examines a theoretical analysis that highlights the conditions that are likely to be modified or transferred by the Employer in a way of limiting the Engineer’s authority under the construction contract as a result of the possible interplay among participants including the Employer and others engaged to act on his behalf.