【正文】 之后下發(fā)了占有證書 ,并且是在部分屋頂坍塌之后。 此項(xiàng)重要分析的目的是圍繞住房標(biāo)準(zhǔn)分析津巴布韋協(xié)會(huì)總部房屋的部分屋頂坍塌問題。這是因?yàn)樾枰淖円酝慕?jīng)驗(yàn)推斷，這可能會(huì)產(chǎn)生誤導(dǎo)。用全面的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理方法，能使一個(gè)公司確定該組織的業(yè)務(wù)的所有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。 這被認(rèn)為是必要的，不僅僅允許其他反應(yīng)加以探討。建設(shè)工程的復(fù)雜性意味著，無論在物理形態(tài)還是組織結(jié)構(gòu)上將項(xiàng)目定義為僅考慮相對(duì)較小數(shù)目的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。 工程師可以瀏覽項(xiàng)目管理者的工作方法，并提供有益的建議。只要分包商在最高保證價(jià)內(nèi)它們就被償還給建設(shè)管理者，因此建設(shè)管理者代表業(yè)主和分包商談判變更事項(xiàng)。 這種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分析能夠更容易，通過它的多方位方法對(duì)建設(shè)問題做重要的檢查，為未來建設(shè)項(xiàng)目做一個(gè)有效的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理策略的鑒定。 推斷它們之間的缺陷應(yīng)該在部分屋頂坍塌之前及早發(fā)現(xiàn)并及時(shí)糾正是合理的。 社會(huì)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)是比較公平的：所有分包商有一個(gè)公平的工作目標(biāo)。 這是一個(gè)過程，允許業(yè)主選擇一個(gè)建立在資格基礎(chǔ)上的建設(shè)管理者（簡(jiǎn)稱 CM）；建立一個(gè)合作工程團(tuán)隊(duì)；在建筑合同下集中工程責(zé)任；取得最高價(jià)格保證；產(chǎn)生更多 可管理，可預(yù)測(cè)的工程；節(jié)省時(shí)間和金錢，并減少對(duì)業(yè)主，建筑師和建設(shè)管理者的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。 這些技術(shù)被認(rèn)為與許多風(fēng)險(xiǎn)事件的后果的估計(jì)有關(guān)，而不是如何實(shí)現(xiàn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的分擔(dān)。據(jù)說這個(gè)過程需要以一種科學(xué)形式開始并且以一種藝術(shù)形式結(jié)束。 建筑專業(yè)人員需要知道如何用他們具體的合同，財(cái)務(wù)，業(yè)務(wù)和組織需求平衡不可預(yù)見的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。 僅采用建立在過去的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和判斷的基礎(chǔ)上的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理方法，可以很好地并合理地在穩(wěn)定的低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)環(huán)境中工作。正是在這個(gè)階段，被告 8 的律師請(qǐng)求將這個(gè)問題達(dá)成庭外和解。 另外，不合格責(zé)任期只有 3 個(gè)月。風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分析，通過多方位方法分析建設(shè)問題的決定性查問，使有效風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理策略對(duì)失敗建設(shè)問題的鑒定容易。 save time and money。 Bath (HLB). The contract was awarded to Central African Building Corporation (CABCO) who was also responsible for the provision of a specialist roof structure using patented “gang nail” roof trusses. The building construction proceeded to pletion and was handed over to the owners on Sept. 12, 1991. The SAZ took effective occupation of the headquarters building without a certificate of occupation. Also, the defects liability period was only three months. The roof structure was in place 10 years before partial failure in December 1999. The building insurance coverage did not cover enough, the City of Harare, a 2 government municipality, issued the certificate of occupation 10 years after occupation, and after partial collapse of the roof. At first the SAZ decided to go to arbitration, but this failed to yield an immediate solution. The SAZ then decided to proceed to litigate in court and to bring a negligence claim against CABCO. The preparation for arbitration was reused for litigation. The SAZ?s quantified losses stood at approximately $ 6 million in Zimbabwe dollars (US $). After all parties had examined the facts and evidence before them, it became clear that there was a great probability that the courts might rule that both the architects and the contractor were liable. It was at this stage that the defendants? lawyers requested that the matter be settled out of court. The plaintiff agreed to this suggestion, with the terms of the settlement kept confidential. The aim of this critical analysis was to analyse the issues surrounding the partial collapse of the roof of the building housing the HQ of Standard Association of Zimbabwe. It examined the prior roles played by the project management function and construction professionals in preventing/mitigating potential construction problems. It further assessed the extent to which the employer/client and parties to a construction contract are able to recover damages under that contract. The main objective of this critical analysis was to identify an effective risk management strategy for future construction projects. The importance of this study is its multidimensional examination approach. Experience suggests that participants in a project are well able to identify risks based on their own experience. The adoption of a risk management approach, based solely in past experience and dependant on judgment, may work reasonably well in a stable low risk environment. It is unlikely to be effective where there is a change. This is because change requires the extrapolation of pa