Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Ebrahim Azizi ¹
• Farshad Farazmand ²
• Hossein Taleqani Mansournejad ²
• Mohammadhossein Osta ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Private Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

² Ph.D Student, Private Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

1. Introduction
Governmental development plans have always been a point of concern for countries in terms of how to use national wealth in these projects. Governments have tried to devise possible ways to make better use of public resources in development projects. One of the solutions provided in Iranian law is the establishment of a legal body called the Supreme Technical Council. This council was established according to Article 80 (amended) of the Budget Law of 1977, approved in 1979, and was responsible for duties and powers, such as the authorization of price floors and the revision of general contract rates. In 1999, according to paragraph (c) of Article 53 of the General Conditions of Construction Works Procurements (a uniform regulatory document issued by the government that prescribes some general conditions that apply to all construction projects engaged in by a public authority), it was considered to be the arbitrator in disputes arising from development projects and so, this role was added to its aforementioned capacities. In this study, by analyzing the nature of these duties, powers, and authorities of the Supreme Technical Council, we will examine whether, first of all, the assigned missions are in line with the existential philosophy of this council. Is there a need to plan such tasks or not? further, is there a consistency between the duties, authorities, and powers of the council? Finally, some solutions and suggestions will be provided accordingly.

Methodology

In this article, by collecting data through library resources, we answered questions with the analytical-descriptive method.

Results

1- According to parts "a" and "b" of amended Article 80, the Supreme Technical Council is responsible for reviewing and approving the basic prices and related market regulations and instructions, as well as reviewing and approving the prices of special items (which are marked with an asterisk). This has so far been the best way in preventing the unusual increase in the cost of public construction projects and the abuse and waste of public resources. In this role, the Supreme Technical Council has an executive duty.
2- According to part "c" of the amended Article 80, the duty to revise the general contract rates has also been assigned to the Supreme Technical Council. The appeal request by the general contractor is subject to the approval of the highest administrative authority of the public party (the employer) and after that, the Supreme Technical Council makes a decision regarding the request. This type of adjustment is a contractual price adjustment and the role of the Supreme Technical Council in agreeing to the appeal is to be a part of the decision-making elements of the public party's executive body which makes it a party to the contract (on the side of the employer). Therefore, in this perspective, the legal nature of the role given to the Supreme Technical Council is as a party to the contract.
3- The last duty assigned to the Supreme Technical Council in part "D" of amended Article 80 is to review and make a decision on issues that have been raised by the public parties (employers) for which the contract has not provided a specific solution beforehand. it has been discussed that, in this role, it seems that the Supreme Technical Council is, again, a part of the decision-making side of the public party, and therefore, as a matter of its legal nature, it plays the role of party to the contract.
4- The last power that has been considered for the Supreme Technical Council is the authority of arbitration in construction projects, which is derived from paragraph "C" of Article 53 of the general conditions of Construction Works Procurement, which is a judicial role and the Supreme Technical Council acts as a judge between the parties in this role. In addition to the problems that exist in terms of the possibility of exceeding its legal powers in setting guidelines about the general and specific conditions of Construction Works Procurements, and in providing templates for drafting arbitration clauses and the terms used in them, it seems that this authority causes the litigant to be the judge of its own case. Because as mentioned, in some cases, the Supreme Technical Council is on the decision-making side of the executive board of the public contracting party and is somehow involved in this litigation.

Conclusion

According to the aforementioned results, the suggestions are as follows:
1- Considering the practical benefits of the duties mentioned in clauses "a" and "b" of the amended Article 80, we suggest keeping them as they are until a better solution is found in this regard.
2- Regarding clauses "c" and "d", considering their negative effects in terms of time and money, it is suggested that these powers be assigned to the highest authority of the executive body of the public contracting party just like they were before the amendment of Article 80.
3- Finally, regarding the duty of the arbitration, it is suggested that the position of alternative dispute resolution methods in the General Conditions of Construction Works Procurements should be strengthened and it should be mandatory to refer to them and not be at the discretion of the parties (as it is). Also, by amending the laws, the parties of construction projects should be given the right to choose an independent and validated arbitration authority active in the country.
Keywords: General Conditions of Construction Works Procurements, Supreme Technical Council, BOQs, Contract Rates, Development Plan, Arbitration

Keywords

• General Conditions of Construction Works Procurements
• Supreme Technical Council
• BOQs
• Contract Rates
• Development Plan
• Arbitration

Main Subjects

• Public Law