A central challenge for construction lawyers, whether dealing with the earlier procurement and contract formation stages, the execution of the project or the disputes, is managing risk. Identifying the factors likely to give rise to risk, assessing the risk and then figuring out how best to limit the risk lies at the heart of what construction lawyers do. This is reflected in the wide-ranging contributions to this final part for 2022, all of which in essence are dealing with risk. Collaborative contracting, and the creation of new types of contractual arrangements, is the result of industry players looking to reduce the risk of disputes during the life of a project. Similarly, the now very common prompt payment legislation and adjudication dispute resolution mechanism are aimed at avoiding lengthy disputes during the project life, and thereafter, in relation to payment, and in some jurisdictions, in relation to any disputes arising. An important risk item from the contractor’s perspective is non-payment, and our third contribution considers non-contractual quantum meruit, where the contractor has performed work but there is no contract, or no enforceable contract. States, and the political and economic situation in a particular state, form part of the risk assessment for stakeholders in the industry, and states are of course themselves important employers in the sector. Our second contribution looks at the history of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its current challenges around large infrastructure projects linked to uncertainty in ASEAN’s legal and regulatory framework. Uncertainty, self-evidently, equates to, and increases, risk.

In an age when collaboration in large infrastructure projects remains a desired but often unmet goal, we start this final part of 2022 with “Forms, Use and Performance of Collaborative Contracting Models in Australia and the US – Past, Present and Future”. Sean Kelly and Yazmin Judd explore the history of collaborative contracting and carry out an insightful review of earlier studies of the usage of collaborative delivery models in construction and infrastructure projects in both Australia and the US. The authors start by recognising that in both jurisdictions, collaboration was born out of a dispute weary industry looking for means of reducing disputes and in particular the consequential costs, before moving onto current perceptions. Of particular interest are the predictions which Kelly and Judd offer, including the assessment that while the appearance of bespoke collaborative design and construct arrangements may not be an example of a collaborative contracting model, it provides evidence that industry recognition of the benefits of collaborative contracting models has the potential to not only create a “broader church”, but to ameliorate some aspects of traditional delivery models.