Roy Pickavance, November 2002
Page 1 of 4
A review of the Society of Construction Law Delay and
Disruption Protocol
Roy Pickavance BSc FRICS FCIArb FASI ACIOB
is a Chartered Quantity Surveyor with over 25 years of
experience dealing with disputes in the construction industry as
an expert and advisor. Based in Nottingham, Roy is principal of
a forensic quantity surveying and delay analysts practice. He is a
practising adjudicator, he frequently lectures to qualified
professionals at mid-career conferences, and he is joint editor to
the authoritative text “Delay and Disruption in Construction
Contracts”.
roy@arpickavance.co.uk
In October of this year the Society of Construction Law
published the final version of its Delay and Disruption Protocol
(hitherto referred to as its EOT protocol). Those who have
followed its development will know that the final version is little
different in its principal objectives to earlier versions.
The Protocol remains steadfast in setting out the methodology
for proactive delay analysis (as the job proceeds) and the
methodology for retrospective delay analysis (after disputes
materialise). It has toned down its doctrinaire attitude to certain
types of claims and has been more reserved in its attempt to
dictate the law where no legal precedent exists.
There are parts of the Delay and Disruption Protocol that are
wholly unnecessary and detract from its good points:
• Its attempts to decide what claims can, or should, be made.
This is an unnecessary confusion in what is generally a
good document.
• The attempts to dip into aspects of quantum appear
amateurish.
Roy Pickavance, November 2002
Page 2 of 4
• Its comments on how specific definitions are to be
contractually interpreted should be cautiously adopted
since we are all aware that each contract has to be
construed on its own terms and definitions.
So what has the Delay and Disruption Protocol to offer to the
construction industry and to those of us involved in dispute