A paper presented to the Society of Construction Law at a meeting in Birmingham on 20th September 2016
This paper addresses a commonly held misconception that prospective and retrospective methods of delay analysis, even when properly carried out, will give the same results.If it was true, given the large difference in costs of different methods, would experts not be required to use the cheapest method?The paper considers the extension of time provisions of standard forms of contract and the guidance in Rider 1 to the Society of Constructions Law's Delay and Disruption Protocol (draft 2nd edition, published June 2016).The paper explains why prospective and retrospective methods produce different results and uses simple worked examples to illustrate the differences.
Introduction - The requirements of the contract - Prospective and retrospective methods - Conclusion.
The author: John Marshall CEng, BSc(Hons), FICE, FCIArb, MAE, CArb is a civil engineer, adjudicator and delay analyst: www.fermata-uk.com.
Text 16 pages.