Scott, S (1997) Delay claims in UK contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(3), pp. 238-244. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Contract conditions in both the United Kingdom and the United States are sufficiently similar to allow common generic delay claim scenarios to be recognized, but there are important differences in the extent of legal precedent for assessing such claims. In the United States recognized procedures have been developed to allow critical path method (CPM) to be adopted in this area, while in the United Kingdom the situation is much less clear. It is true that U.K. professionals will generally recognize that CPM will be useful in dealing with delay claims, but there is little evidence that a standard approach has been accepted. A survey was conducted by the writer to discover how U.K. claims for delay were being prepared (by the contractors) and how they were being assessed (by the supervisors). Because of the complexity of this area, the study was approached in a number of ways. This paper presents conclusions concerning attitudes towards such claims and information about the mechanisms that are being adopted to prepare and evaluate them.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | contract condition, supervisor, United States, United Kingdom, survey, evidence, complexity, critical path method |
| Subjects: | operations research, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, systems engineering, Geography, contract structure |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Time Control, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here