That's quite a proposition and I cannot support it as yet, but hopefully this is an area to be explored and challenged. My knee jerk reaction to this a while back was no, I don't think so. Adam Wilson, an experience H&S professional undertaking a masters degree found otherwise.
Importantly this is the first research, to make a significant connection between H&S performance and the type of contract used. Even if the research can’t yet prove a “statistical significance” based on the admittedly good but statistically non-robust data samples, he found that using the target cost option of NEC ECC there were the least accident frequency rates than any other contract. That's quite an outcome.
It is something, I honestly cannot imagine the NEC Panel debated as being a likely outcome, for target cost contracts. Adam is keen to do more to prove or otherwise this outcome and I will keep you updated of progress, maybe you can help with any surveys he undertakes, or data required?
In the meantime why might this possible outcome be the case? Thinking about hands off, non-collaborative design and build contracts not using NEC. Programmes are non-existent, objectives are not aligned, people tend to work in a reactive and hindsight based capacity. Perhaps this has an impact on H&S? Thinking about NEC3 ECC Option C then surely the reverse applies? The programme is at the heart of things, objectives are aligned, people are tending through the early warning and compensation event processes to work in a proactive and foresight based capacity. All of this must theoretically result in a positive impact on H&S, even when not explicitly controlled by contractual agreements.
What do you think?
Rob
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Option C contracts require, and produce, a diferent mindset. In the decision making process on H&S investment the fact that should the project overrun and get into a pain/gain mechanism the client will share some of the cost of additional H&S encourages the wavering contractor agent to make the right decision which he may not if it were fixed price. It would be interesting to consider the causality of other initatives eg Considerate Constructors
ReplyDeleteRob,
ReplyDeleteCan you substantiate the assertions in your final paragraph?
I have worked under NEC, JCT and GC/Works contracts and find that for refurb (my sector) NEC leads to muddle and confusion with overlapping and contradictory programmes for dozens of unconfirmed CEs.
Far more likely that by tying the Client into the decision about spending money for improved safety, a target cost contract prevents them from 'teflon desking' responsibility to the contractor without the contractor having the means to recover the cost.
Regards,
Steve
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. My final paragraph assertions are just me thinking out loud as to why the research may have thrown something up so interesting. In a non-collaborative environment which I had at least 10 years experience of, the thoughts of talking sensibly to each other and having available a real time programme was a million miles from where we were. For the past 14 years I have worked on NEC contracts, though it is generally slow, hard work, parties are generally far better at communicating, give themselves a chance of solving problems through the early warning process and set out with good intentions to effectively had a jointly owned programme. This is not theory, it happens regularly.
We also have people not well versed with the contract, who do not like to make decisions in real time and do not appreciate the benefits of having high quality realistic programmes to aid decision making. This may have been your experience?
In your case a muddle would be avoided if compensation events are progressed in real time and not parked to see what happens (which I guess is the case). It is for the Project Manager to ensure the compensation event process happens, if he does not agree with eg a Contractor's quotation he asks for another stating reasons or gets on and makes his own assessment. The stacking up of compensation events should never occur, if it does, someone has erred.
I can't see that the client is tied up in this way - he has, through the Project Manager, the opportunity to challenge/question etc the Contractor's programme - the Contractor is obliged to Provide the Works in accordance with the Works Information and the parties share in the pain/gain accordingly - decisions will be made that need to be the optimum balance of safety/cost/time/performance etc.
Rob