Even before the launch of PSSCOC for D & B, the design and build procurement method had been used in both the private and public sectors of the construction industry. In an article in Focus on Property and Construction in Singapore 1995/1996 published by the then School of Building and Real Estate1 entitled “Evaluation of Design and Build Techniques in Singapore” by the then Ms Florence Ling Yean Yng (now Dr Ling), she identified six variant types of design and build techniques used in the Singapore construction industry. The six types are:

In its purest form, a traditional design and build contract allocates the responsibility for design and construction to the contractor. This means that the developer by himself or through his consultants has no say in the design. Accordingly, any defect in the works is the sole responsibility of the contractor as there is no other party to which to attribute the blame. Unless otherwise provided, the contractor is responsible for ensuring that the finished product is fit for the purpose for which it is built. The contractor might in turn be indemnified by the designer.

In the second situation, the HDB engages the designer to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements. By engaging the designer for supervision duties, the developer may put him in a situation where there may be a conflict of interest as between that of the contractor and that of the developer. This is so if the situation calls for the discretion and professional judgment of the designer in which he has a range of possibilities to choose from that may benefit either the contractor or the developer but not both equally.

Where the engagement contract of the designer is novated such that the contractor takes over from the developer as a party to the engagement contract, the responsibility of the designer remains at the level of using reasonable care and skill to carry out his design work. However, the package which the contractor offers would not be so limited but is responsible for ensuring that the finished product is fit for the purpose for which it is constructed unless otherwise provided in the design and build contract. Quite clearly, the contractor is not able to recover a complete indemnity from the designer should the cause of any failure be attributable to the design since the responsibility owed by the designer to the contractor under the engagement contract is lower than the responsibility owed by the contractor to the developer under the design and build contract unless it so provides for the lower standard of responsibility.

The engineering design and build arrangement cannot, strictly speaking, be called design and build since the responsibility for the design by the architect is retained by the developer. The contractor is only allocated the responsibility for the design by the engineer. In traditional contracts, there may be a significant allocation of responsibility to the contractor by way of nominated sub-contracts in respect of specialist works which may include design, supply and instal. Accordingly, only for defects which are attributable solely to the contractor’s design would the higher responsibility apply to ensure that the finished product is fit for the purpose for which it is constructed. Where the defects may be attributable to the design carried out

---

24