Harris, R A and Scott, S (2001) UK practice in dealing with claims for delay. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(5-6), pp. 317-324. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The paper describes four methods of dealing with delay claims that effectively sum up the main approaches to this problem that have been offered in the literature. This is then followed by a description and discussion of results from a new survey aimed at finding out exactly how professionals in the UK construction industry approach these difficult issues. It appears that those who deal with delay claims in the UK are likely to use a critical path method network to do this and generally approve of a methodology that attempts to understand how well the contractor would have fared but for' the existence of employer-responsible delays. There is less agreement about who should be said to own the float, but as is explained in the paper, it is possible for this matter to be dealt with by the insertion of a clause in the contract documents.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | administration; attitudes; claims; contract; delays; methodologies; scenarios |
| Index terms: | survey, critical path method, contract document, methodology, construction industry |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, research methods, contractual condition, operations research, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Time Control, Contract Administration, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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