An American perspective of the SOCL's delay and disruption protocol's "model clauses"

The costs associated with the administration of delay and disruption claims on construction projects are known to be excessive. The poor quality of project documentation, programming, and site records are often cited as a major cause. In October 2002 the United Kingdoms Society of Construction Law published a Delay and Disruption Protocol containing "model" clauses that seek to address and improve the preparation, approval, and updating of the contract programme, and the keeping of suitable and adequate project site records. The aim of this research was to obtain an American perspective of the consequences of the SOCL's Delay and Disruption Protocol's "model clauses". Qualitative interviews were carried out with USA construction industry experts experienced in the administration, negotiation, and resolution of delay and disruption disputes. It was found that there was general agreement and support for the philosophy of the "model" clauses and the industry good practice they espouse, and any likely increased costs resulting due to the need for additional administrative resources to implement them would be outweighed and offset by the perceived benefits of improved project management, a reduction in the number of project delays and claims being generated, and improved project cash flow, with the overall degree of impact of the "model" clauses being dependant upon the size and/or complexity of the project in question