Construction Management Guide

By Dr Samer Skaik

With the unprecedented outbreak of the coronavirus across the globe, many universities and schools have been initiating projects to transform their operations from ‘face to face’ to virtual environments aided by various technologies. This call seems to be inevitable since the outbreak will continue to evolve for at least another six months. In this context, three demanding questions come into play:

By Dr Samer Skaik

A few days ago, the Turnbull Government released the final report of the Review of Security of Payment Laws, undertaken by Mr John Murray. Murray’s report made 86 recommendations to improve consistency in the security of payment legislation. In the relevant Media Release, the Minister stated that:

the Government will consult with industry to consider the report’s recommendations and explore ways to improve the protections for individuals and businesses involved in subcontracting in the construction industry.

The report provided eight recommendations (43-50) pertaining the introduction of review mechanism in statutory adjudication based on my written submission in this regard. The written submission was merely a presentation of the findings of my PhD entitled “Introducing review mechanism into statutory construction adjudication.” I cite the relevant paragraph from the final report which cites my rationale of introducing this concept: (Read more..)

By Dr Samer Skaik

Very recently, I have launched a channel on Youtube. This channel aims to provide integrated, handy and focused

educational materials for those interested in developing their competencies in construction project management, professional practice and leadership. My aim is to help raise the bar by providing sound, solid and up-to-date knowledge for students, graduates and professionals in the construction sector. The channel, in addition to the videos, includes other interesting educational playlists. You can display the playlists chronologically if you are keen to develop a robust understanding in the field and advance progressively towards mastering the subject. The playlists include:

1. My Videos (short lectures)
2. Managing projects
3. Doing Research
4. Construction Management
5. Professional Development

You are kindly invited to visit the channel, subscribe, share and provide feedback and ideas for improvement.

Samples of uploaded videos:

(Read more..)

We are very delighted to launch the Inaugural Mentoring Programme targeting graduates and early-career professionals in the construction industry.

This is a free service initiated and operated by CMGuide and led by CMGuide Founder (Dr Samer Skaik). The mentoring programme is targeting ambitious graduates and early-career professionals in the construction industry. The programme is only available in Australia. We encourage prospective and interested mentors in Australia who have the experience in any of the mentoring areas to join our ‘Mentors Panel’ ASAP so we can serve and enrol more mentees in the programme. Interested mentors should mention the mentoring area and availability arrangement so we can properly match mentees (protégé) with appropriate mentors. It is completely up to the mentors and mentees once to discuss and agree the mentoring arrangement during the mentoring year such as mentoring duration (not less than 6 months), communication method, frequency of meetings, level of support, etc.  (Read more..)

By Samer Skaik

I am delighted to see my article entitled “The tip of the iceberg: Jurisdiction of statutory adjudicators” published this month in Construction Law Journal under Construction Act Review Section. This is the second time I got an article published in this section. A third article is also in the pipeline for the next edition.

This is the brief as quoted from the Editorial introduction:

Samer Skaik discusses the jurisdictional limits of statutory adjudicators in both the UK and New South Wales adjudication models, focusing on challenges relating to the validity of the adjudicator’s appointment. The author identifies the trend of the Australian courts in particular to allow adjudicators to provisionally determine their own jurisdiction rather than encouraging pre-emptive applications by the parties. He considers this approach problematic, in part because adjudicators may not be legally trained, but also as giving rise to other difficulties and inconsistencies that in his view undermine the intention of the legislation. The author concludes by proposing a “roadmap” to regulate adjudicators’ jurisdiction, to assist with navigating around the difficulties and deficiencies that he identifies.

To read the full article, please click here

(Read more..)

By Samer Skaik

Statutory adjudication has been enacted progressively throughout Australia on a state-by-state basis over a period of 10 years starting in 1999. The first Australian jurisdiction to introduce statutory adjudication was New South Wales (NSW) by virtue of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999. Despite the many differences between all of the Acts in Australia, they can be broadly grouped on the basis of similarity into the East Coast model Acts (including New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Australian Capital Territory)[1] and the West Coast model Acts (including Northern Territory and Western Australia).[2] The East Coast model Acts were modelled after the original NSW Act and provide, in addition to an adjudication scheme, for a highly regulatory statutory payment scheme which runs alongside the contractual payment scheme. The West Coast model Acts are more akin to the UK Act, affording primacy to the contractual payment scheme. The common objective of all the legislation is to facilitate timely cash flow within the construction contractual chains. (Read more..)

By Samer Skaik

Quality of adjudication decisions under the Security of Payment legislation may mean different things to different people. The ultimate yardstick by which adjudication quality can be measured is to be found in the legal accuracy – both in terms of procedural and substantive fairness – of adjudication decisions whether such decisions involve a determination on the merits or dismissal for want of jurisdiction. However, recognising that there is a trade-off between fairness and efficiency in dispute resolution,[1] this criterion needs to be calibrated in the light of the legislative objective, being to provide a rapid dispute resolution procedure in order to expedite cash flow on construction contracts. Thus, it would clearly be absurd to hold adjudication decisions up to as higher level of scrutiny as in arbitration or litigation. (Read more..)

By Samer Skaik

Many construction practitioners in Australia face difficulties in understanding the mechanism of the Statutory Adjudication and how it differs from a State to another. While it is important to point out that the Australian Acts are different, there are a number of common mechanisms. Typically, a person entitled to a progress payment for carrying out construction work (or supplying related goods and services) had to seek recovery of any unpaid amounts via lengthy legal proceedings in arbitration or court. As such, parliament enacted the Security of Payment (SoP) legislation to protect the rights of such persons and facilitate rapid recovery of due payment. The SoP legislation provides statutory rights enabling quick and inexpensive recovery of progress payment for any subcontractor or supplier performing construction works or supplying related goods and services. To facilitate these rights, the SoP introduced a rapid adjudication process to resolve payments disputes. (Read more..)

By Samer Skaik

Many commentators have suggested that,[1] the “one size fits all” approach taken by the Australian security of payment legislation (save for Queensland) is no longer appropriate (if indeed it ever was) for producing quality outcomes in adjudications of complex payment claims, where larger and more difficult payment disputes are involved. (Read more..)

by Laura Warren and Alexa Hall

Site condition risk is not static. All too often, during the course of construction, contractors encounter subsurface conditions that differ from those set out in information provided by its employer or anticipated in their bids, or come across unforeseeable or undetected site conditions in the field. Such discoveries can cause schedule delays, cost increases and dangerous working, invalidate design assumptions and ultimately pave the way to litigation. One size does not fit all and the site condition risk is unique for each and every project. In the context of site risks, there is no substitute for signing a clear contract which, where possible, identifies such risks, and particularises precisely what the parties should do if they eventuate. (Read more..)