The Society of Construction Law (Australia)

Dear all,



I can advise that this organization (The Society of Construction Law Australia) is now up and running!



For those Planning Planet members who may be interested in joining, I understand that an interactive online application form should be available on the website within the next few weeks at href=’http://www.scl.org.au’>www.scl.org.au.



Alternatively, please feel free to email me via this forum if you require an application form before then.



Regards



Anders Axelson

href=’http://www.pezala.com’>Pezala Consulting

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/stephen.scott/

http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/const/pap29oct04.htm

http://www.rics.org/Practiceareas/Management/Disputes/Consequences_of_S…

http://www.rics.org/Practiceareas/Builtenvironment/Constructionmanageme…

David,



Yeah, I know - I’m a member of both organisations, and know them both well. I know them to be very similar, if not identical, in their objectives. I was making the point because I was bemused that each seemed to be labouring under misconceptions about the other.



I’m well aware of your research into delay and disruption. In fact, a paper that you wrote in the 1990s that I recall appeared in the journal "Construction Management & Economics" was one of my first ever introductions to the subject!!



Regards



Anders.

David,



Interesting that you should mention that might be an objection for the SCL to associate with a "disputes" society...



In the past, I understand that the Building Disputes Practitioners Society has equally taken a high moral ground about associating with the Society of Construction "Law" - on the basis that it is intended to be an inclusive organisation for practitioners across the industry - not just lawyers!!



Regards



Anders.

Desert boy needs to go back to grammar school....

AS A LAST SHOUT



YOUR FIRST THREAD IS AN INSULT TO THE



AUSTRALIAN

for the benifit of english speaking.



ADIOS is the spanish word for





GOODBYE

walang salamat sa iyo !!!



in english



no thanks to you

you started it



so now you backpedalled.



anyway there is nothing in your first thread.



ADIOS



Walang salamat sa iyo.

david said "he is only a messenger"



perhaps, David can make rebuttal on some issue but I like to handle it like in a lively debate for example



"RESOLVE THAT EOT PROTOCOL FROM SCL SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED BY PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRACTITIONER."



There will be pros and cons



I’m also interested to highlights some best idea from AACEI.



of course on our free time since I’m involved in a big job

Toby,



I know what David intent in his first post.



But, as he said, "I tempted fate"



So, David is practically making an opening gambit, baiting me.



Also, I want to quetion SCL on the way they handle the eot protocol here in PP



Beside, if you stay in this planet for too long, you will know that idea jump from the original intent of the thread to other idea, then to other idea, then go back to the original intent, and so on and so forth.

Charlie, that post was hilarious.



I agree with David, and think that you may have missed the point of this thread.



In the future I would suggest that you remove the gun from the holster before firing, or you may end up shooting yourself in the foot.

and during revision as per clause 14,



the contractor was pressuring us to approve the revise baseline program otherwise they will unilaterally declare "TIME AT LARGE"



Again such term from EOT protocal by SCL



I did not recommend to approve the revise baseline program because it projected the completion date beyond the contractual completion date. At the time the revise baseline was submitted, the project was two years after the start of project in a four years contractual project duration, so fifty percent actual project duration.



Beside, the baseline program contains a lot of constraints, a lot of open ended activities to the point that there was distortion of logic, you really can not understand the CPM or the longest path. Even the contractor can not understand there own schedule



BUT, just the same I did hear the scream "APPROVE OR TIME AT LARGE"



Again, EOT protocol used in a devious way, can really intimidate lesser individuals. My colleagues approve, but I made it clear, I dont agree. so my time in the project is numbered because I did not back down.

Hello David,



I did think for a while on how to respond to SCL in general and the EOT protocal by SCL in particular.



WOW, I love this.



Basically I got this funny experience woring in a project team as project control engineer wherein the first email i got on my first day is the EOT protocol from SCL. I really wonder how it comes to our office. I’m working in the project management.



As my stay in that project (I resigned long time ago) move with time, I got a feeling that the contractor is deliberately programming activities to start too early with too much float and deliberately delaying the starts of activitiies with matching letters "... we reserve our rights to claim for extension of time with corresponding prolongation cost blah blah blah and blah, etc...."



To make the story short, IMHO, the EOT protocol from SCL is the antichrist (666)to sound project management principles.



Why this is so???????



SCL don’t want to make mockery of the EOT protocol, but there is no way, that protocal will improve unless it is bombarded with tough question from project management practioner.



In fairness, anyone within the project management higher management thinking in line with EOT protocal from SCL will definitely fail the project.



David, do you want to rock and roll. This time we will focus on specific issues within the EOT protocol and compare it with other practice from the English’s cousin, the Americans, specifically, AACEI.



Charlie

Dear all,



Unless I am hugely mistaken, the UK SCL is not simply seeking to set up an Australian branch of the UK SCL – it is encouraging a stand-alone, independent Australian society in the same way that SCLs in other jurisdictions (e.g. UAE, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore etc.) have been established. As it happens, however, there is already established in Australia the Building Dispute Practitioners’ Society, which is based in Melbourne (see www.bdps.com.au). The BDPS, I understand, is long-established (it pre-dates the UK SCL) and well supported, with close ties to the Bar, major firms, judiciary, academia, etc., serving basically an identical function to that of the SCL in the UK. But it is only really in Victoria at present – although I do understand it may be considering setting up elsewhere, using its members’ plentiful ties with dispute practitioners in other states as a springboard for doing so.



Not that I purport to speak for either the SCL or the BDPS!)



Regards



Anders.

Trevor



Don’t worry, you won’t get too many UK people trying to tell you guys what to do!



The SCL has been a success in the UK, and if this can be repeated in Australia then you should encourage it. It is a good forum for learning.



Regards



Toby

David, why is The Society of Construction Law (UK)promoting the establishment of the SCL in Australia?



Is there any need being met?

What does it replace and why is it better?



Australia already has all of the ingredients, a legal system, and a firmly established tradition of pear shaped projects followed traditionally by construction disputes with all of the accoutrements of arbitration, legislation and litigation, barristers and experts.