{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016113744075829384, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.416413373860182, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
FOREIGN EXPERIENCE OF THE PUBLIC POLICY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INSTITUTION OF “CONSULTING ENGINEER” IN CONSTRUCTION: EXPERIENCE OF ROMANIA, POLAND AND HUNGARY

The article is devoted to the research of innovative development of the public policy concerning the implementation of the institution “consulting engineer” in the construction, in the context of Ukraine’s integration into the world economic space. An assessment of the main FIDIC documents used in Romania, Poland, Hungary for the organization and conduction of public procurement has been carried out. The suggestion is made that the best adaptation of international experience to the domestic realities of the consulting engineer can take place under the condition of cooperation between Ukraine and the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, with which it is most closely connected both with historical traditions and with economic aspects. It is noted that the main problems facing Romania’s employers in the field of construction during the development of projects were as follows: a slow procedure for ensuring proper access to the construction site; errors in the source planning data; errors in the data on the location of the object; a slow procedure for obtaining permits through bureaucracy and legislative difficulties for construction; limitation and delay of payment for the performed work, including the salary of the engineer-consultant. In these circumstances, more and more attention was needed not to questions regarding the progress of construction work, but to fulfill the requirements for their implementation. It was substantiated that in Polish practice the role of the consultant engineer was limited to performing the functions of the customer representative in accordance with the clear instructions of the latter. The reason for this situation was the conflict between two contracts: the engineer’s contract and the main contract. This led to a burst of court appeals, because instead of a neutral position of risk-manager between the customer and the contractor, the engineer became the defendant on the battlefield.