Active Seminar

Series of Teach-In Seminar Workshops
on Learning From The Past & Adopting The Best Practices
In Administrating & Managing PAM Contract 2006

---

Most construction projects often vary or depart from the original design, scope and definition upon completion. This probably arises of technological advancement, statutory changes or enforcement, changes in conditions and requirements, geological anomalies, non-availability of specified materials, or simply arising from continued development of design after contract award or upon the request of the Client. Changes and Variations are one of the common causes of disputes between or amongst parties in contract with issues related to following:-

• Was the work in question within or outside the scope of work?
• Did the parties comply with the procedural requirements under the contract?
• What is a fair or reasonable value of the variation work?
• Should Preliminaries be claimed as part of the variation or should a separate claim be submitted?
• Would Changes and Variations give rise to work disruption & delay that consequently lead to time extension as well as loss and expense claims?

The process of Administrating & Managing Variations and Cost Related Claims involve respectively the Architects & Builders/ Construction Project Managers; whereas the Dispute Resolution Professionals (Mediators, Adjudicators Or Arbitrators) will be Mediating, Adjudicating Or Arbitrating The Variation Related Issues & Claims accordingly.

Workshop Objective & Best Practice Strategy

The Workshop encompasses the learning process of the entire Project Life Cycle On Changes & Variations; Delays & Disruptions; Assessment & Ascertaining Variations, With Additional Preliminaries & Other Loss & Expense Claims by the respective professionals & experts – The Architects, Builders, Construction Project Managers & Dispute Resolution Professionals. It allows “Learning From The Past (Case Study & Analysis)”, while interacting amongst Participants & the Facilitators to determine the best practices to adopt, in managing effectively Changes & Variation Claims, Disruptions & Related Costs.

Attempting the best practice strategy along with the Sun Tzu’s Art Of War – 胜者先胜而后战, 败者则战中求胜 (Ascertain/ Assure Victory Before, But Not During A Battle),
而取胜战略为, 征服彼方, 不战而屈 (The Supremacy Art Of War Is To Subdue The Opponent Without Having To Fight), with the following learning outcome:-

• Determining the Challenges & Best Practices of the Architects in administrating project variation & related issues – Progress Monitoring, Assessing, Evaluating & Ascertaining Variation & Related Cost Entitlement;
• Determining the Challenges & Best Practices of the Builders And/ Or Construction Project Managers In Monitoring & Managing Project Changes, Variations & Preliminaries throughout the entire Project Life Cycle; Project Information & Document Management & Administration for purposes of Assessing, Preparing & Resolving Variation, Additional Cost For Preliminaries; and Loss & Expense Claims, while determining the appropriate best practices to adopt in the subject matter;
• Determining the Challenges & Best Practices of the Dispute Resolution Professionals in resolving Variation, Additional Preliminaries & Related Loss & Expense Claims

Programme 3 Wednesday, 17 August 2016 Case Study & Analysis On Administrating, Managing & Resolving Changes & Variation Claims In Construction Projects
08:30 – 09:00	Registration & Breakfast
09:00 – 11:00	Revisiting The PAM Contract 2006 On The Procedural Approach In Administrating, Monitoring & Ascertaining Project Changes & Variations From The Perspective Of The Architects (Project Administrators)
11:00 – 13:00	Revisiting The PAM Contract 2006 On The Procedural Approach In Managing Changes, Document & Information For Variation Claims in Construction From The Perspective Of The Builders/ Construction Project Managers
13:00 – 14:00	Lunch
14:00 – 16:00	Resolving Issues Arising From Project Changes & Variation Claims From The Perspective Of The Dispute Resolution Professionals (Mediators, Adjudicators Or Arbitrators)
16:00 – 17:30	Case Study & Analysis On Construction Project Changes & Variation Claims :- Henry Boot Construction Ltd -v- Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd [2005] McAlpine Humberoak v McDermott International [1996]
17:30 – 18:00	Refreshment & End Of Programme 3

Learning From Case Studies & Analysis…

Henry Boot Construction Ltd -v- Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd [2005]

The extent to which BQ rates are applicable to value works, particularly where there are variations or substantial increases (or decreases) in quantities, is a common source of argument between Builders and Contract Administrators.
At worst, the rate concerned may be very high or very low, either deliberately, or arising of an error. Consequently, Builders would argue that it is unfair for low rates to be used in valuing variations as it compounds their losses; while Employers/ Contract Administrators would conversely argue that high rates should not be used as it would mean a windfall profit for the Builders. The Henry Boot Construction Ltd -V- Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd is the first case to examine exactly this point …

McAlpine Humberoak v McDermott International [1996]

A contract was for the construction of four huge pallets in connection with the construction of an oil rig. The number of drawings used increased from 22 that were available at tender stage to 161 for the construction of the work. In addition, the contractor raised many Technical Queries (TQs) in relation to the drawings.
The lower court held that the changes were so extensive that the old contract had been replaced. When the dispute was referred to the Court of Appeal a different view was taken when it was decided that …

Programme 4 Thursday, 18 August 2016 Case Study & Analysis On Administrating, Managing & Resolving Additional Preliminaries; And Loss & Expense Claims Arising From Variations & Work Disruptions
08:30 – 09:00	Registration & Breakfast
09:00 – 11:00	Revisiting The PAM Contract 2006 On The Procedural Approach In Administrating, Monitoring & Ascertaining Additional Preliminaries & Other Loss & Expense Claims From The Perspective Of The Architects (Project Administrators)
11:00 – 13:00	Revisiting The PAM Contract 2006 On The Procedural Approach In Managing Additional Preliminaries & Other Loss & Expense Claims From The Perspective Of The Builders/ Construction Project Managers
13:00 – 14:00	Lunch
14:00 – 16:00	Resolving Contractual Issues On Additional Preliminaries & Other Loss & Expense Claims From The Perspective Of The Dispute Resolution Professionals (Mediators, Adjudicators Or Arbitrators)
16:00 – 17:30	Case Study & Analysis On Additional Preliminaries & Other Loss & Expense Claims :- Alfred McAlpine Homes North Ltd v Property and Land Contractors Ltd (1995) Roe Brickwork Ltd -v- Wates Construction Ltd [2013]
17:30 – 18:00	Refreshment & End Of Programme 1

Learning From Case Studies & Analysis…

Alfred McAlpine Homes North Ltd v Property & Land Contractors Ltd (1995)

This dispute arose out of the construction of houses by the defendant in Shipton, Yorkshire. The claimant issued a notice under clause 23 of the JCT Standard Form of Building Contract to postpone the contractor's works.
The defendant duly submitted a Loss & Expense Claim under clause 26 of the contract for Additional Preliminaries, comprising Overheads And Profit And Idle Plant On Site. The claimant refused to agree this claim. On appeal from an arbitrator's award, the Court held that …

Roe Brickwork Ltd -v- Wates Construction Ltd [2013]

Roe was a brickwork subcontractor for the construction of three blocks of flats on the Ocean Estate in Tower Hamlets, East London. Roe claimed that its work had been delayed by about six months and that, as a result, it had suffered significant Loss & Expense on,

1. Additional Preliminaries and Loss of Overheads & Profit (OHP)
2. Loss of Productivity, broken down by various causes
3. Additional Supervision and Management Costs

The adjudicator decided the OHP claim by increasing the “Loss” amount awarded with Added Percentage (%) to the additional costs claimed rather than adopting the method in the Claimant's claim. The Defendant resisted on ground of breach of Natural Justice; and Judge Edwards-Stuart ruled that …