I realise this is an old thread and I might be a bit late to assist with your studies.
I have recently been assisting in a research project Developing Protocols for Virtual Prototyping headed by Professor Andrew Baldwin of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University with assistance in the UK from Professor Simon Austin of Loughborough University.
Part of that research was a survey of the UK Construction Industry and we have an article in the February 2007 issue of Construction Manager that details some of the findings. In particular:
"When the Protocol was published some voiced concern that it would solely become a standard by which expert reports were to be judged. This does not seem to have been the case, as those that know about the Protocol say it is cited in less than half of disputes they have been involved with. It was not intended that it should be a contract document and only 13% say they have been involved in projects where the contract conditions have been amended to include or comply with its terms.
Having said that, one of the Protocol’s aims was that, in time, most contracts would adopt its guidance. This does not seem to be happening in the UK to any great extent although the SCL has recently reported that the Romanian equivalent of the UK’s Highways Agency is to direct its consultants and contractors that they must implement the procedures of the Protocol on all existing and new projects."
In my view such protocols may not be used in arbitration or litigation becuase in legal cases contractual conditions always superceeds on such documentation
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Wed, 2006-09-20 18:58
I only know where it has been refered to and held up as good practice, either for the planning during a project or its recomendations for retrospective analysis - but I dont know of any case where the Protocol has been incorporated in a contract and then a dispute over something in the Protocol has come to court.
As its main aim is good practice and dispute avoidance, it would have failed miserably if some point had ended up in court over something contained in it!!!!
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: SCL Delay & Disruption Protocol
David,
Youre more than welcome to comment, as always. The question I guess is why hasnt the Protocol been taken up more widely in the UK?
I think it the increasing use of the NEC form of contract has probably had alot to do with it.
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: SCL Delay & Disruption Protocol
Ofer
I realise this is an old thread and I might be a bit late to assist with your studies.
I have recently been assisting in a research project Developing Protocols for Virtual Prototyping headed by Professor Andrew Baldwin of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University with assistance in the UK from Professor Simon Austin of Loughborough University.
Part of that research was a survey of the UK Construction Industry and we have an article in the February 2007 issue of Construction Manager that details some of the findings. In particular:
"When the Protocol was published some voiced concern that it would solely become a standard by which expert reports were to be judged. This does not seem to have been the case, as those that know about the Protocol say it is cited in less than half of disputes they have been involved with. It was not intended that it should be a contract document and only 13% say they have been involved in projects where the contract conditions have been amended to include or comply with its terms.
Having said that, one of the Protocol’s aims was that, in time, most contracts would adopt its guidance. This does not seem to be happening in the UK to any great extent although the SCL has recently reported that the Romanian equivalent of the UK’s Highways Agency is to direct its consultants and contractors that they must implement the procedures of the Protocol on all existing and new projects."
The full text can be found at:
http://www.construction-manager.co.uk/story.asp?storyType=143§ionco…
you might have to register to get access but it is free.
Apologies to those subscribing to this thread (Andrew!) who have read and commented on this before.
Regards
David
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: SCL Delay & Disruption Protocol
Hence my statement
"where the Protocol has been incorporated in a contract"
Member for
22 years 3 monthsRE: SCL Delay & Disruption Protocol
In my view such protocols may not be used in arbitration or litigation becuase in legal cases contractual conditions always superceeds on such documentation
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: SCL Delay & Disruption Protocol
Ofer,
I only know where it has been refered to and held up as good practice, either for the planning during a project or its recomendations for retrospective analysis - but I dont know of any case where the Protocol has been incorporated in a contract and then a dispute over something in the Protocol has come to court.
As its main aim is good practice and dispute avoidance, it would have failed miserably if some point had ended up in court over something contained in it!!!!