Arbitration rules as per International Chamber of Comm

Hi Shreeji,

Check the link below:

http://www.aacei.org/technical/rps/29R-03.pdf

Refer to page no. 11

May be of some help

Hi Shreeji

If it has got as far as an International Arbitration the two sides will each have appointed Experts in the various heads of dispute.

The delay amaysis experts will be required by the Arbitrator to agree on the software and the method of analysis.

If they do not agree then the arbitrator will tell the experts which is his preference - which it would be wise to follow.

Remember that the role of the expert in any tribunal is to assist the Arbitrtor / Adjudicator / Judge from a neutral position - any hint of favouratism will result in the case being dismissed.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Shreeji,

Check this site also. Here u can find lot of case-studies.

http://www.bailii.org/

Cheers,

Ravi

Hi Shreeji

The ICC Arbitration Rules do not specify any particular form of delay analysis. It is for the claimant to present his case as he considers appropriate and I have not yet come across an ICC tribunal which has specified a particular form of delay analysis to be used.

I have seen an impacted as-planned used in an ICC arbitration where the claimant argued that this was the best form of delay analysis because in the curcumstances. I have also come across as-planned vs as-builts being used in ICC arbitrations. What seems to be clear, however, is irrespective of the type of programme you use, if it is not based on facts then it is likely to be rejected by the tribunal.

Hope this helps

Andrew

Thanks Andrew it really helps to know that the claim is not going to be rejected just for the method used.

Mike - as always thanks for your expert comments.

Ravi - those links were too good, you bloody became a master of information sources.

Hi Sreejish

The claim will be rejected if the method used is not the correct one to use in the circumstances.

In a recent case - Great Eatsern v Laing - the experts each used a different method and the one using As Built but For was thrown out while the Impacted as Planned won.

Time Impact Analysis is usually acknowledged as being the most realistic but I would not use it for a sub-contract package where an As Built v As Planned would be better.

The first skill of a delay analyst is to know which method - or combination of methods - to adopt.

I renently put together a delay and acceleration claim by adjusting the calendars - no known method at all.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Allow me to add that the analysis method is per project basis depending on the situation and the context of the whole project and how things were handled, how much information is available,etc..

I agree with someone who stated earlier that the arbitration model of the ICC doesn’t specify a particular analysis method. Actually it doesn’t really touch on this subject as far as i remember in any of its articles
Regards