Diales Compendium Issue 3 - Flipbook - Page 21
ISSUE 3
COMPENDIUM
The primary requirement of an expert delay report is to assist
the adjudicator or tribunal to understand the matter in hand,
hence the requirement to find the balance between the use
of technical language (to explain a particular issue), and the
use of more straight forward language and explanation that
is understandable for an adjudicator, without being dumbed
down or sounding patronising.
An example of where more straightforward language might
have helped an adjudicator to decide on a matter that was
difficult to explain, and decide which party held the risk,
occurred on a refurbishment project in which the existing
roof needed to be demolished to make way for an additional
storey. The contractor designed and constructed a temporary
scaffold roof over the existing roof to allow its demolition, but
crucially, part of the temporary scaffold roof was propped
back to the existing roof. This meant that the existing roof
could not be fully demolished until an entirely new second
temporary scaffold roof was designed and constructed by the
contractor over and above the first temporary scaffold roof,
which was then removed and allowed the remaining existing
roof to be demolished.
Essentially, the contractor’s design of the first temporary
scaffold roof was incorrect and should never have been
propped against the existing roof to be demolished.
The resultant delay was a risk for which the contractor held
the risk.
However, the adjudicator appeared to confuse the
responsibility for the design of the second temporary
scaffold roof, because this roof was founded in part, back
to the existing structure which meant that the Employer’s
structural engineer agreed to provide comments to the
contractor’s second temporary scaffold roof design.
The adjudicator decided that the second design did not
form part of the contractor’s temporary works, and held
the Employer liable for the delay to the roof demolition
because of the length of time it took to produce a temporary
scaffold roof design that would allow the existing roof to be
demolished.
Much technical language was used in the Employer’s witness
statements and in the evidence provided by the Employer’s
structural engineer, which meant that the essential message
of the contractor’s incorrect first design was lost amongst
all the technical detail. This resulted in the adjudicator
essentially missing the key piece of evidence in which the
contractor was liable for the design of both temporary
scaffold roofs, and ultimately made the wrong decision.
21