CHANTAL-AIMÉE DOERRIES QC
PROFESSOR DOUGLAS S JONES AO
Large international construction projects often engage a range of technical expertise. Likewise, during the course of the life of a project, a wide range of legal questions will usually arise. The contributions to Part 2 of 2021 reflect this variety. We start by covering the procurement process, first, in the context of the infrastructure required for Olympic Games and secondly, in the world of design competitions. This is followed by a consideration of proportionate liability and the challenges which arise in providing certainty for parties sensibly seeking to assess their risk exposure at the outset of any project. The penultimate contribution takes the reader into the world of dispute resolution, in particular, adjudication where the claiming party is insolvent. We conclude by returning to the prevention principle, in this case by reference to the 2017 FIDIC suite of contracts.
Great sporting events give rise not only to significant challenges in the sports arena, but frequently also challenge those responsible for the procurement and construction of the extensive facilities required to host such large events. In “Olympic Games: Is Paris 2024 Less Well Organised and Equipped in Procurement than London 2021?” Gabriel Armanet carries out a comprehensive and considered review of the respective approaches to the organisation and procurement of both the relatively recent London 2012 Games and the future Paris 2024 Games. The author assesses the central building blocks, highlighting the differences between the decisions taken by the two cities in respect of organisation and governance, procurement routes, contract forms, delivery on time, the all important budget and finally, dispute resolution. Some aspects clearly involve a degree of choice, such as the London decision to use one unique public authority with a Delivery Partner versus the Parisian approach, which favours the use of existing local authorities, together with an OPC consultant, the conventions d’objectifs and certain rights of scrutiny and to take over the works. Others are perhaps more a reflection of the particular jurisdiction, such as the applicable contractual terms, the approach of collaboration and the available standard forms of contract.
The second article transports us into the arena of a different kind of competition, namely design competitions, and asks whether they comply with the relevant public procurement law. Nicola Ibbotson examines whether it is possible for the legal requirements of transparency and objectivity arising in the arena of public procurement to sit alongside the practical requirement of subjectivity in design competitions. The article grapples with this dilemma by reviewing five design competitions covering housing developments, an exhibition space, a renovation of a listed building and an urban realm design contest. In “Do design competitions comply with the law?” the author begins by assessing the complex definitions around