Project Managment Adjudication - Assignment Example

Project Managment Adjudication RE: DISPUTE CONCERNING DELAY AND DISRUPTION OF A CONTRACT Following a dispute concerning delay and disruption of a contract between a subcontractor and main contractor, I propose having a meeting to clarify the pertinent issues that caused the dispute. Besides, I would like us to narrow down on the circumstances that caused the dispute amongst other things between the subcontractor and the main contractor. As the adjudicator in the resolution of the dispute, I would like to assume that financial constraints and breach of contract between the main contractor and subcontractor might have developed delay and dispute between the two contractors necessitating adjudication procedures and implementation to resolve conflicts (Coulson & Coulson, 2011, p. 16). I propose we have a meeting on the May 30, 2015, basing our agenda in development and critical understanding of dispute resolution procedures in construction and engineering industries between the main and the sub-contractors through adjudication. During the meeting, understanding statutory arbitration processes within the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act, Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act and Finally, The Schemes for Construction Contracts is critical to enable an effective adjudication procedures and implementation effective resolutions (Papakonstantinou, 2014, p.13). Consequently, an in-depth analysis of the above issues will assist in resolving disputes in the construction process and preventing future occurrence of any delayed construction contract or disputes in the construction industries. One of the relevant case law that is vital to the meeting includes the observation of local democracy, economic development and Construction Act (LDEDCA) 2009. Observation of these rules will enable for better understanding of adjudication procedures as well as assist in settling on significant decisions based on the conflicts. Additionally, I strongly recommend, that you read various laws of construction and engineering cases in the United Kingdom environment to facilitate procedures of adjudication. During your research of the laws and kindly note Part 8 of LDEDC Act 2009 that amends part II of the HGCR Act 1996. Remarkably, HGCR Act 1996 states the removal of requirements for construction contracts should be in writing and strongly applies in your case. The adjudication on the costs in this conflict resolution entail in this Act, on which party is to pay the arbitration fee. Hence, both the primary and the subcontractor need to develop and agree on the kind of negotiations that will be effective during the arbitration process and the party liable for the costs incurred during adjudication procedures begins (Chetkow, 2013, p. 10). Besides, Housing Grants, Construction, and Regeneration Act 1996, states that you have the right to refer to Adjudication in case of dispute that develops under construction contract at any time. However, financial stability of both parties needs to consider before adjudication processes begin to avoid insolvency of the affected parties. I would then advise you to take relevant and appropriate steps in dealing with arbitration process during the meeting, with proper knowledge of the steps and relevancy of adjudication in resolving dispute of the construction between central and subcontractor in equal measures. Finally, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) enforce the adjudication process, besides TCC accelerates procedures for the adjudication meetings and business. Moreover, the court takes flexible, helpful and practical approaches to the facilitation of arbitration processes. Proper engagements with the arbitration procedures will assist in solving disputes and delayed contracts within construction developments between the main and subcontractors efficiently. Thank You in Advance, Adjudicator Part 2: Agenda for the adjudication meeting The two main parties in the adjudication process are the main and sub-contractors. The plan for consideration for the two parties is to master the adjudication processes and steps, with prior knowledge of the relevant case laws, based on the procedures of construction and engineering processes during disruptions and delayed contracts after issuing a referral letter (Brunson, Conte, & Masar, 2010, p.10). The meeting will engage different parties in several conversations to ensure that adjudication process takes place actually. Moreover, the development of various case laws associated with construction and engineering incorporates as one of the agenda in the meeting, basing facts especially from construction Act and schemes for construction contracts. Moreover, the agenda is to understand the relevant procedures when engaging the TCC in setting out adjudication business during the enforcement of actions relevant to conflict resolution of the issues concerning construction and engineering dispute resolutions. Additionally, TCC (Technology and Construction Court) assists in setting up different agenda before the meeting by giving the maximum amount of people who need to attend the meeting with their relevance before adjudication process begins (Gearty, 2011, p. 12). The number of people with their connection as suggested TCC assists in coming up with appropriate procedures when dealing with conflict resolutions based on construction and engineering cases. Wilmot (2010) argues that the parties should develop a report on the ways they need the adjudication process to take place and the number of participants with the type of assistance available as they include TCC conditions. The agenda needs to include both parties’ grievances setting out various detailed information on the contract agreements before it begins in written form. Moreover, the adjudication process needs to have a formal agreement by both parties, before it begins to avoid any inconveniences or insolvency, just in case one of the parties fails in paying the charges for adjudication process. During the setting out the agenda of the meeting, both parties need to agree with the engagements of the adjudication to develop a productive meeting and come up with final agreements, based on arbitration procedures relevant for solving disputes and delayed contracts between the primary contractor and subcontractor (Kreidler & Furlong, 2010, p.11). Consequently, the agenda of the meeting to the parties explicitly incorporates adjudication process and relevant procedures for conflict resolution of delayed contracts between the main and subcontractors (Kennedy, 2010, p.22). Moreover, the meeting will specifically engage adjudication issues, since the conflict revolves around construction and engineering issues with scrutiny done on the relevant case laws such as Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and economic development and Construction Act (LDEDCA) 2009. The two Acts within adjudication procedures will assist in setting out a various agenda for the meeting and develop relevant conflict resolution procedures in solving disruptions and delayed contractual agreements between main and subcontractor. Part 3: Discussion of the Agenda Opening session Adjudication session was initiated by adjudicator Victor, who gave reasons for the adjudication and various ways of solving disputes between the man and subcontractor. In this case, the dispute is delay and disruption of a contract between the main and subcontractor. The two parties are in dispute and various issues raise from one of the parties. However, each of the parties has taken a position, forcing the adjudicator to take jurisdiction considerations to solve their grievances efficiently (Reuters 2012, p.1). The session of adjudication takes place since it gives an opportunity for a subjective decision and judgment that favors both parties. The adjudicator then takes charge of the arbitration procedures to arrive at a final decision with constructive conflict resolutions. Adjudication and jurisdiction The first stage of adjudication and jurisdiction is to serve a notice of arbitration to the adjudicator of conflict resolutions by entailing a party and appointing an arbitrator (Hess, 2011, p. 9). In this case, the main contractor served a notice and appointed Victor as the adjudicator. This first stage efficiently allows for adjudication procedures, making the case between the main and the subcontractor relevant for adjudication. Another stage is a referral of the dispute to the adjudicator and submission of the response to the referral notice. The main contractor referred the dispute to Victor and responded to the referral notice actually leading to the final adjudication process-taking place efficiently. Jurisdiction was to give subcontractor an opportunity within a period of six months to purchase the materials needed in the construction process and correct the budgetary figures before construction works begin again. The adjudicator decision was the third stage of adjudication procedures before implementation of the decision as the final stage of the arbitration process. Explanation by the parties The main contractor filed a report to the adjudicator complaining of subcontractors current decisions on the completion of Media Lab Complex building. Moreover, the main contractor complained that subcontractor had interfered with the schedule program of contract implementation through misusing finances. In contrast, subcontractor denied the claims and filed a report that the main contractor wanted his interests to be served first. In this case, adjudication had to take place since all the negotiations and procedures involved before arbitration failed at the initial stages of the conflict. The adjudication process incorporates construction process in written form. The arbitration progression takes place since construction contract was in written form as defined by the Construction Act. This gives opportunity for the adjudication procedures to take place including the creation and generation of more agenda during the meeting to assist in conflict resolution between the main and subcontractor. Claimant The claimant of the case is the main contractor against subcontractor. The main contractor claims that the subcontractor breached the contract by misusing the projects money and buying not up to the standards materials for construction. Chern (2011) argues that the contract between the main and subcontractor incorporates adjudicator involvement in case a dispute rises before completion of the contract. Additionally, adjudicator-nominating body (ANB) included in the written contract, forcing and allowing procedures of adjudications to take place in the contract. From the considerations above, adjudication is necessary for conflict resolution of the construction and engineering services. Besides, the contract complies with Construction Act since individual adjudication processes appear in the contract as mentioned in section 108 of the Construction Act. Respondent The respondent in this case was the subcontractor. During conflict resolutions, TCC involves the assistance of practical and helpful approach through actions to facilitate adjudication procedures in responding to the subcontractor grievances. The respondent suggested engagements of TCC during adjudication process enable for an effective conflict resolution, giving the main and subcontractor an opportunity to continue working on the contract actually (Vogenauer, & De La Feria, 2011, p.15). Representatives Technology & Construction Court (TCC) represent the main contractor in the adjudication process as well as the national government. Additionally, (TCC) accelerates procedures of adjudication by enforcing adjudicators’ decisions. Besides, the court represents the national government by moderating proceedings of adjudication by setting out decisions on the number of people required during adjudication procedures with their relevance in dealing with issues. Moreover, different parties in dispute resolution such as the primary and subcontractor, in this case, make proper use of tactical use of TCC proceedings to assist in an efficient adjudicated process. Evidences The main contractors report for the application of the adjudication process contained the initial financial structure that was developed and their prices. However, subcontractor’s receipts did not represent and match with the quotations of the project, incorporating adjudication process to solve the dispute. Applications made by disputing parties to the TCC can assist in resolving jurisdictions issues. This is done before adjudication proceedings begin in any disputing parties resolutions. The advantage is that parties proceed to adjudicate substantive issues without the involvement of running any risks of overhead costs. However, cases may nullify later depending on the jurisdictional challenge made according to the adjudicator decisions. In this case, lack of any applications made to the TCC by the main or subcontractor, allowed adjudication process to take place effectively. The costs involved in solving the case emanate only from adjudication procedures without any developments or engagements of the TCC. Witnesses The contract was sealed through a lawyer who engaged both parties in the contract agreement. Misuse of funds and breach of contract was witnessed by the Bank, where funds was kept.Dupret (2011) suggests that adjudication independence makes adjudication process easier and allows for massive conflict resolution without any help and decisions or procedures of the TCC. Independence of adjudicated procedures gives time for quick decisions on the relevant issues during conflict resolutions between the main and subcontractor. According to Latham Report based on constructing a team in 1994, recommended dispute resolution by adjudication need to incorporate all the relevant standard forms during the construction of industries. The standard forms entailed, in this case, involve the participation of both parties in adjudication procedures with the observation of TCC requirements before conflict resolution between central and subcontractor. Lunch break After the adjudication process, we were able to have a lunch break with all the stakeholders in of the adjudication process. During the lunch break, all the stakeholders engaged in various talks that facilitated dispute resolution. Closing statement by the adjudicator The adjudicator ruled that the passing of Government’s Housing Grants Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 stated that all the construction contracts covered by the Act could engage in adjudication. Based on this case, the Act implements significantly, by allowing adjudication procedures to take place efficiently in the process of conflict resolutions involving all the parties (Salmon, 2012, p.12). Additionally, engaging the entire stakeholder in budgetary developments, this failed to take place as per the contract generating disputes and disruptions before completion of the construction. All these were covered in the Housing Act, forcing adjudication procedures to effectively take place during conflict resolution between the main and subcontractor. Conclusion Adjudication procedures, in this case, generate many advantages than disadvantages. The procedures involve less formal procedures than courts and suitable for international disputes (Solanki, 2011, p. 26). Additionally, the parties select an arbitrator of their own to assist them in conflict resolutions through the efficient adjudication process. However, adjudication process has varied quality and detailed decisions, which may affect the parties. Besides, there is a limited right of appeal when adjudication decision may not satisfy one party. Bibliography Brunson, R., Conte, Z., & Masar, S 2010, The Art In Peacemaking A Guide To Integrating Conflict Resolution Education Into Youth Arts Programs, Springfield, Ill, NCCRE. Chern, C 2011, Chern on Dispute Boards Practice and Procedure. Oxford, UK, Wiley-Blackwell. Chetkow-Yanoov, B 2013, Social Work Approaches to Conflict Resolution: Making Fighting Obsolete, New York, Haworth Press. Coulson, P., & Coulson, P 2011, Coulson on Construction Adjudication, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Dupret, B 2011, Adjudication in Action an Ethnomethodology of Law, Morality, and Justice, Farnham, Ash gate. Gearty, C. A 2011, Principles of Human Rights Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hess, S A 2011, Design Professional and Construction Manager Law, Chicago, American Bar Association, Forum on the Construction Industry, Retrieved April 18, 2015 from http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/construction_industry/2014_fci_diversity_fellowship_application.authcheckdam.pdf Kennedy, D 2010, A Critique of Adjudication: Fin De Siècle, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. Kreidler, W. J., & Furlong, L 2010, Adventures in Peacemaking: A Conflict Resolution Activity Guide for School-Age Programs, Cambridge. MA, Educators for Social Responsibility. Papakonstantinou, Z 2014, Lawmaking and Adjudication in Archaic Greece, London, Duckworth. Reuters, T 2012, Adjudication and Arbitration, Find Law UK, Retrieved April 18, 2015 from http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_resolution/alternative_dispute_resolution/280.html Salmon, Kenneth T, 2012, Cases on the Enforcement of Construction Adjudication Awards, Author House. Solanki, G 2011, Adjudication in Religious Family Laws: Cultural Accommodation, Legal Pluralism, and Gender Equality in India, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Vogenauer, S., & De La Feria, R 2011, Prohibition Of Abuse Of Law A New General Principle Of Eu Law, Oxford, Hart. Wilmot-Smith, R 2010, Construction Contracts: Law and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More