Just a thought on z clauses......

Having reviewed a few tender documents recently and the horrors of z clauses within them I was thinking just how much the z clause industry is costing the economy? How much time/cost is involved in preparing (hashing?) the z clauses, which passes to x tenderers to their advisers then all of their suppliers and tier 2 contractors and there advisers and on and on and on......The cost must be horrific and to what end? Nobody says NEC3 contracts are perfect and in an unamended form will always address all client's needs, but one document I reviewed recently had 40+ pages of these things, even including a z clause that deleted a secondary Option (rather than just not select it in the Contract Data) - who had that brainwave? Do you really have the right starting point when you end up with amends bigger than the original contract? Do advisers actually listen to how their clients wish to do business and ensure that their requirement is met, or do advisers tinker for their own ends? And what does all of this cost the taxpayer I wonder in public sector contracts?

So here's a (brave) thought for the second half of 2015.....

Clients about to engage advisers to write reams of z clauses.....stop. Don't do it. Leave the contract as is, give half of the money you would have paid the advisers to charity and invest the other half in making sure the Works Information (for ECC, Scope etc for other NEC3 contracts) is a quite brilliant document. This will lead to better behaviour, lower tender costs, sensible contract management and a better industry.....who's first up to give this a real go and let us know how you get on?!