Archive

Solve the problem of one-sided liability clauses
PPC2000 – for when the going gets tough
Enthusiasm – the difference between success and failure
Gobbledegook or plain English?
Early praise for PPC2000

Solve the problem of one-sided liability clauses
Mark Bull, Construction Contracts Consultant, said in Construction News (27 May 2004):

In my experience specialist subcontractors normally complain about the standard contractual approach of some main contractors, which has not been fundamentally ameliorated by Part II of the Construction Act.

If more main contractors actually practised what they preach in the media then their use of standard form partnering contracts, such as PPC2000, would largely solve the problem of one-sided and detrimental liability clauses.

(Reproduced with permission of the Editor, Construction News.)

PPC2000 – for when the going gets tough
Building (10 May 2002) reports:

Having already had one nightmare with a housing block refurbishment, Hackney Council wasn’t about to make the same mistakes.

David Harrison, a partner at QS Leonard Stace, stresses the importance of programme sequencing for success, in particular the need to allow for problems decanting difficult residents. This meant that the specialists had to be closely involved in contingency planning. ‘We wanted to build transparency into the programme,’ he explains. ‘We needed the concrete specialists on board early in case we needed to rejig the programme; they would know whether these changes were achievable.’ A close-knit team with a common objective – which PPC2000 was drafted to encourage – was the only way this approach could work.

The big test for the partnering approach occurred with a cut-through that was to be made in the middle of Rogate House to create two separate blocks. Some residents refused to move, and the problem was compounded because accommodation for them was not ready. This led to a disastrous 20-week delay, which was then cut down to six weeks through clever sequencing. This flexibility meant the financial penalty was small. John Carroll, Hackney’s regeneration manager, breathes a sigh of relief:"This has not cost us anything; with a traditional contract this would have cost us a fortune while the contractor sat around twiddling his thumbs.’ The team is unanimous that things would have got very contractual if this had not been a partnering project.

(Reproduced with permission of the Editor, Building.)

Enthusiasm – the difference between success and failure
Andrew Helmsley of consultants Cyril Sweet writes in Building (4 May 2001):

Whatever you may think of it, clients are using PPC2000, which makes the role of Partnering Adviser crucial to a project’s success.

The role can be neatly separated into two distinct types of advice. First, contract and legal advice, writing ancillary contracts to the main partnering agreement and assisting with disputes. Second, and more important, the provision of strategic partnering advice to help navigate the best way through the partnering process.

The key to the success of a partnering project, certainly when the client and team are new to partnering, is having someone involved who will champion partnering and who can bring enthusiasm, drive and knowledge of partnering to the project.

So how should you choose your partnering advisor? Well, do the boring stuff. Check them thoroughly and vet their track record by all means. Make sure they have experience and the tools to do the job. Take references if you want. But most important, talk to them. See if you can feel their enthusiasm – that is what will make the difference between success and failure.

(Reproduced with permission of the Editor, Building.)

Gobbledegook or plain English?
Michael Phillips of Thurston Consultants writes in Construction Law (February 2001):

It is difficult to describe PPC2000, with its plethora of new terms, without appearing to poke fun at them. That certainly is not the intention.

The presentation, with its lack of complex numbering and multiple insets, shows how a contract can be clearly and plainly drafted. Perhaps this and the novelty of terms will finally persuade die-hards that the contract is not something to put into the drawer until there is trouble.

(Reproduced with permission of the Editor, Construction Law.)

Early praise for newborn PPC2000
Building Magazine editorial (8 September 2000):

The industry’s first standard partnering contract will be launched next week. It seems bizarre to use legal clauses to govern relationships based on trust. But this is construction.

What is so impressive about the partnering contract, published by the Association of Consultant Architects, is that is encourages clients to bring every team member on board at the outset and ensures that everyone signs up to the design before work starts on site. There are also neat mechanisms for ensuring that relations run smoothly and for nipping disputes in the bud.

Of course, there’s a risk that any contract will turn into just another pay-day for lawyers – particularly one like this, written in non-legalistic language. But it is this accessibility that will appeal to hitherto sceptical clients such as local authorities, which are already piloting the form.

(Reproduced with permission of the Editor, Building.)