Early contractor involvement involves engaging contractors to work with the client’s design team during the pre-construction stage before agreeing on a construction stage contract. Despite the growing use of two-stage contracting, there is a lack of research into the forms of pre-construction service agreements and their effectiveness. This study aims to evaluate the optimal contract ingredients for a pre-construction stage agreement that can be used with a range of standard-form construction contracts based on industry preferences. Four agreements are critically evaluated: those of the Joint Contracts Tribunal and NEC3 and two bespoke agreements. Key ingredients were found to include scope of services, time obligations, design obligations, key personnel, price formation, confidentiality of material and communication and co-operation. Industry preferences were obtained through semi-structured interviews with 21 construction participants across New Zealand.

Procurement strategies that enable early contractor involvement (ECI) in design may enhance off-site manufacturing (OSM) by overcoming previously identified barriers to its uptake. Involving constructors during the design stage can reduce the risk of design buildability issues, and standardising traditionally bespoke ECI processes may help overcome cultural resistance to unfamiliar OSM technology. Following literature review and using case studies, document analysis and legal doctrine, a two-stage ECI conceptual process model for New Zealand is proposed. This was tested and refined following feedback at a conference. The model comprises a first-stage pre-construction contract and a second-stage standard-form construction contract. Key process variables are considered with solutions to provide collaboration and transparency while maintaining competitive fixed pricing across the supply chain. Legal doctrine analysis is used to distinguish between design buildability obligations and design codes compliance. The model contributes towards the development of a standard form for pre-construction contracts.

By offering fixed price contracts for designs supplied by clients, contractors legally warrant that they can build what has been designed and do so within their fixed price. Yet detailed drawings are often issued during construction in response to contractors' requests for information on the basis that they cannot otherwise build what has been designed. Claim entitlement decisions are often made by construction professionals (Architects, Engineers, Quantity Surveyors) without legal training in contractual interpretation, potentially varying who pays for design development after contract signing, contractors or clients. Prior studies have addressed buildability obligations relating to ground conditions and foundations. This study applies key principles of contract law to consider who should pay for instructed drawing details post contract signing under of New Zealand Standard NZS3910:2012 Conditions of Contract for Building and Civil Engineering Construction in terms of (i) when a variation claim may be accepted; (ii) effect of contractor involvement in design development; and (iii) effect if claimed from a building subcontractor to a consultant manager (no head contractor). A claim entitlement flowchart and a table comparing head contractor and consultant construction manager obligations provide practical guides for contract administrators. Findings may help contract drafters toward removing ambiguity from contracts.

Adjudication has been statutorily introduced as an alternative dispute resolution method in 14 jurisdictions including New Zealand. Whilst adjudication under the New Zealand Construction Contracts Act 2002 has been hailed a success, further refinements were proposed in the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill first published in 2013. As part of the legislative process, 48 submissions were made to the Commerce Committee. There was general support for most of the amendments, but some parties expressed concerns on some of the changes. A documentary analysis of the Amendment Bills and submissions to the Commerce Committee was made to critically evaluate the changes proposed and establish if they were improvements. The findings show the major changes proposed include (i) removing most of the distinctions between the treatment of residential and commercial contracts under the Act, (ii) extending the scope of the Act to apply to contracts for certain professional services, (iii) removing the distinction between enforcement of payment determinations and of those relating to rights and obligations, and (iv) making the enforcement process more efficient. The findings also show that during a period of over two years from when the Bill was first introduced in January 2013, one other significant improvement for retentions to be held in trust was made. A few proposals to further refine the Bill such as the suggestion to mandate retentions to be kepts in a separate trust account were however not accepted. The Construction Contract Amendment Bill (Bill 97-3) was uninanimously passed during the third and final reading in Parliament on 20 October 2015 with most of the amendments coming into force on 1 December 2015, those incorporating professional services on 1 September 2016, and the retention provisions on 31 March 2017. Royal assent was given on 11 October 2015 leading to the enactment of the Construction Contracts Amendment Act 2015.