A UK and Australian perspective of the suitability of the scl protocols' provisions for dealing with float for adoption and use by the Australian construction industry

During the negotiation and resolution of delay and disruption disputes on construction projects, the use and misappropriation of float, and the question of float ownership, are considered to be a major concern to those involved. Most practitioners and authors are of the opinion that it is an issue that should clearly be defined and addressed within the provisions of the contract. However, the terms float or ownership of float are rarely mentioned (if at all) in most of the standard forms of Australian construction contracts, giving little guidance to those involved as to how this issue should be addressed. In October, 2002 the United Kingdoms Society of Construction Law (SCL) published a Delay and Disruption Protocol (the Protocol) that contains a suggested approach to the issue. The aim of this research was to obtain a comparative opinion of those involved in the drafting of the Protocol and an Australian perspective of the suitability of the Protocols suggested approach to the issue of float and float ownership for use by the Australian construction industry. Semi structured qualitative interviews were carried out with members of the SCL protocol s drafting committee and Australian construction industry experts experienced in the administration, negotiation, and resolution of delay and disruption disputes to obtain their opinions of the suitability of the SCL s proposed approach. An ethnographic content analysis was then undertaken of the interview transcripts in an attempt to identify any common themes in the participants responses. Initial results indicate no general agreement or consensus concerning the potential benefits of the SCL s proposed approach to the ownership of float for the Australian construction industry, with the identification of a number of issues that would need to be addressed should the approach be adopted.