The critical difference between PWD203A (Rev.

10/83) and GCW is found in the

descriptions of the procedure of measurement and valuation of variation. In
PWD 203A (Rev. 10/83), clause 25 (b) refers to the measurement and valuation
of variation.

(i) The rates in the Bills of Quantities after adjustment if necessary as provided
in Clause 26 (d) hereof, shall determine the valuation of work of similar
character and executed under similar conditions as work priced therein:
(ii) The said rates, where work is not of similar character or executed similar
conditions as aforesaid, shall be the basis of rates for the same, so far as may
be reasonable, failing which a fair valuation thereof shall be made by the S.O.;
(iii) The rates in the Bills of Quantities shall determine the valuation of items
omitted, provided that if the omission substantially vary the conditions under
which any remaining items of work are carried out, the rates of such remaining
items shall be valued under rule (ii) of this clause.

Clause 24 in GCW form provides the procedures for adjustment of the Contract
Price in very simple manner:
Adjustment of the Contract Price shall be determined through consultations
between the Owner and the Contractor. However, if an agreement on
adjustment to the Contract Price is not reached between the Owner and the
Contractor within ( ) days of initiating consultations, the Owner shall determine
the adjustment of the Contract Price, and the Owner shall notify the Contractor
of the adjustment.

We observe that there is no detailed procedure to settle the contractors claim
of additional payment in GCW, whilst the PWD 203A (Rev. 10/83) provides the
detailed procedure in which the contractor has to give the notice of his intention
of claim and is given time to submit full particulars of all claims until 3 months
after practical completion of the Work.

As to the settlement of an extension of time, the PWD 203A (Rev. 10/83)
Clause 43 provides, the S.O. shall so soon as he is able to estimate the length
of the delay beyond the date or time aforesaid make in writing a fair reasonable
extension of time for completion of the Work The GCW Article 23 provides
that Any adjustment of the Construction Period shall be determined through
consultations between the Owner and the Contractor.

In short, PWD 203A (Rev. 10/83) provides detailed rule of change or claim in
the Conditions of Contract. On the contrary, GCW does not provide the
procedure of change or claim. It seems that there is a large extent of flexibility
of the procedure in GCW, whilst flexibility of the procedure is limited in PWD
203A (Rev. 10/83).

In Japan, the Government and the Contractor often have opportunities to enter
a contract again and again. In such a business environment, the both parties
acknowledge the business practice to reach an agreement of Change of Contract
Sum which is not mentioned in the Conditions explicitly. In practice, more often
than not, the Government plays a leading role in changing the Contract Sum. As
has been described previously, the PM is the representative of the Government.
There is no third party in contractual relationship in GCW. In such a case,
people may think that there would be many disputes because the government
or PM would be likely to make a decision always favorable to the government.
But the mutual-trust has been historically formed between the Government and
the Contractor. In other words, the Contractor believe that all the Governments
decisions should be made not on the basis of the Governments own benefit or
the Contractors benefit but on the basis of social benefits, and that the
Government has the ability to make correct decisions. On the other hand, the
Government believes that the Contractor meekly obeys the Government
decisions. It has been believed that this mutual-trust relationship is always
guaranteed by the long-term business relationship between the Government
and the Contractor in the domestic construction market. As far as such a
relationship exists, GCW form can be said to be efficient. But, the question of
transparency should be asked as to validity of variations.

Having said as above, however, it is not to say that there exists no mutual-trust
relationship in Malaysia. Negotiations are held in PDW 203A (Rev. 10/83) when
new prices or rates must be fixed in case of the situation mentioned in Clause
25 (b) (ii) and (iii). To reach an agreement by negotiations, the mutual-trust
relationship between the parties is necessary.

4 Conclusion

This paper identified the specific characteristics of PWD 203A (Rev. 10/83) in
Malaysia and GCW in Japan by comparing the procedures of variation. Standard
forms of Contract are usually revised so as to suit for the domestic specific
situation at times. The significant characteristic of PWD 203A (Rev. 10/83) is
the administrative provisions. While it is often the case with public works that
the government interferes the decision of the S.O. or Superintendent or the
Engineer, a standard form of contract seldom provides explicitly the
governments right to interfere or to limit the S.O.s power. The authors point
out that this aspect may have impact on the S.O.s ability to practice the
concept of impartiality. On the other hand, a characteristic of GCW is that the
provisions are very simple and the flexibility of procedure of fixing the
measurement and valuation of varied work is extremely large.

In this paper, differences of only variation procedure are investigated. The real
purpose of the comparative study of the standard forms of contract is to explore
the substantial difference in philosophy or business practice in each country
which is not mentioned in the forms of contracts. In the future, through
comparative studies in other aspects, the reason why each characteristic of a
contract form has been formed must be proven from the viewpoints of history,
culture and business practices.