Projektering och styrd totalentreprenad enligt ABT 06

Sammanfattning: A construction project usually starts with the client having an idea or a specific need for development. What needs to be built does not exist yet, and to procure a contract with a building contractor, the client’s ideas and needs must be described in a way that makes it possible for them to be realised by the contractor during development. As part of this the building needs to be designed, a process where each step becomes more detailed and includes more components, until the design documents are sufficiently detailed to serve as basis for the construction works. Building contracts are usually divided into two categories, design-bid-build, and design-build. The primary difference lies in which party is responsible for the design of the building. In a design-bid-build contract, the design responsibility lies with the client, and the contractor’s responsibility is to complete the works. In a design-build contract, the design responsibility and the completion of the works both rests with the contractor. The main standard contract for design-build projects in Sweden is ABT 06. This presentation has focused on design-build contracts regulated by ABT 06, where the client aims to maintain some control of the design process. Thus, most of the focus has been directed to the design process and its defining elements. To offer a nuanced perspective on the concept of design has the critical legal-dogmatic method been applied, aiming to analyse how well-suited ABT 06 is regarding the design process. By shedding light on what constitutes as a design decision, and how it affects the allocation of design responsibility, the presentation has also examined why a contractor is held liable for design decisions. The design liability arises from a design decision that affects the final form or composition of a building. Regarding ABT 06 the primary criticism in this presentation is that the standard contract is based on a sequential division of the stages in a construction process. The client can either specify performance-, or design specifica-tion. If the client specifies a performance specification, the contractor carries out the entire design based on the performance specification. If on the other hand, the client specified a design specification, the contractor is not obliged to design any parts of the works, specified in the design specification. Additionally, ABT 06 lacks clarity on the scope of the design portion that the contractor must undertake if the tender document contains more than performance specifications but lacks fully developed design specifications. The implication is that for a client who wants to maintain some control over the design process in a design-build contract regulated by ABT 06, it will usually be more appropriate for the client to include specific design specifications combined with performance specifications, compared to an approach where the contractor finalise already initiated design documents. Furthermore, it is noted in the presentation that the central concepts that are used in determining the design responsibility, design- and performance specifications are themselves unclear, leading to a fluid transition between them, making it difficult to draw a clear line between design- and performance specifications.