AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE OF THE SUITABILITY OF THE SCL PROTOCOL'S PROVISIONS FOR DEALING WITH FLOAT FOR ADOPTION AND USE BY THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

During the negotiation and resolution of delay and disruption disputes on construction projects, the use and misappropriation of float, and the question of float ownership, are considered to be a major concern to those involved. Most practitioners and authors are of the opinion that it is an issue that should be clearly defined and addressed within the provisions of the contract. However, the terms "float" or "ownership of float" are rarely mentioned (if at all) in most of the standard forms of Australian construction contracts, giving little guidance to those involved as to how this issue should be addressed. In October 2002 the United Kingdoms Society of Construction Law (SCL) published a Delay and Disruption Protocol (the Protocol) that contains a suggested approach to the issue. The aim of this research was to obtain an Australian opinion of the suitability of the SCL's Delay and Disruption Protocols suggested approach to the issue of float and ownership of float for use by the Australian construction industry. Qualitative interviews were carried out with Australian construction industry experts experienced in the administration, negotiation, and resolution of delay and disruption disputes to obtain their opinions of the suitability of the SCL's proposed approach. Results indicate general confusion and uncertainty as to how the issue of float and float ownership should be addressed in general, with the SCL's approach adding further to that confusion.