Call for Papers 2015 - International perspectives on construction contracts

Dear all,

The journal Management, Procurement and Law are looking for papers as per the title above. Have a look and maybe you've a paper in you somewhere...!

Rob

www.icevirtuallibrary.com/upload/journals/MPLcontract.pdf

Student research on NEC3

Dear all,

A student is working on a dissertation entitled ‘Is The Philosophy of the NEC3 Form of Contract That of a Truly Collaborative Contract’.

The basis of his review on this subject is:
1. To evaluate and analyse the strategic, high-level procurement objectives of the UK Government;
2. Review 3 key reports into the state of construction (Rethinking Construction, Constructing the Team and Never Waste a Good Crisis);
3. Undertake primary data gathering research via a survey of people on NEC3 projects;
4. Identify whether the widely endorsed NEC3 contract is truly a collaborative contract.

In an effort to garner the true opinions of individuals with experience on projects where the NEC3 contract is or has been in use (item 3 above), he has pulled together a quick online survey (link below), which he would be very grateful if you could distribute kindly complete. This will form an integral part of his data from which he will attempt to draw conclusions and recommendations. All responses are completely anonymous and so all responses to the survey should be as honest and open as possible in order for an accurate analysis to be carried out. There are a total of 32 questions, 6 of which are optional text based responses, and the survey itself should hopefully take no more than 5 minutes to complete.

Thank you in advance for your assistance, the survey will remain open for 3 weeks.
Rob

http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s.asp?sid=onl1yyh87xceprb407231

Competent NEC3 ECC Project Manager (PM) Part III

It's been a while since we looked at this subject. It seems to be a topical question at the most but what sorts of traits/competencies should such a person have? Lots, that I can see, but a few to be thinking about are that the PM.....

• positively challenges Contractor submissions such as design/programme/cost. I'm not saying challenge for the heck of it, but being mindful of what it is the client actually is looking to procure....could there be a better way/solution that that designed by the Contractor? Does the programme look realistically achievable? Is the forecast Defined Cost realistic? Could WE do something different/better to create a more efficient outcome?
• makes sure that the PM and any of the PM delegates respond to communications in a timely manner. Late replies = compensation events! The ECC sets out precisely what is meant by timely, giving maximum periods of time for each communication. So knock spots off the time periods you have and use a QMS that is a help to logging/recording such communications, in and out.
• has one eye on the Employer - has the Employer done what he promises in the contract he will do eg payment within x weeks, free issue supply planned for y, etc?
• has another eye on the Contractor - has/is the Contractor doing exactly as he promised he would do in accordance with the contract?
• doesn't just become a proficient and competent PM overnight. It takes time, support and acknowledgement of role. An individual will have to invest into becoming that competent PM - maybe studies beyond their first degree, perhaps receives further training (see eg the new 4-day accredited PM training course), has a prolific working knowledge of the ECC, has complimentary soft skills, is perhaps mentored by their employing company if they are developing into that role, encourages, supports, offers others the opportunity to develop, and so on.

Thoughts on a postcard!

Change management - necessary/desirable

When using NEC3 ECC, you should of course ideally starting from the position of having an outstanding Works Information, with the expectation that change should be fairly minimal once the contract is awarded. It is of course a good idea to lay down a few rules in respect of post contract change management for the ECC Project Manager (PM) to comply with, whether the PM comes from in-house or a consultancy.

Apart from key things like monetary thresholds, how about getting the PM to distinguish between necessary change and desirable change? Necessary change is just that, something that absolutely must be changed (because it's wrong, or ambiguous, or inconsistent, or was missed off, and so on). Desirable change is where the PM considers it is not necessary, just would be better (aesthetics, quality, longer life, easier to maintain, and so on). This would at least give a client the chance of distinguishing between must have and nice to have changes.

Adjudication reports

I'm not sure if we've shared this before but those parties contemplating adjudication as a means of formal dispute resolution might like to quickly have a look at this service provided by the Glasgow Caledonian University.

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/ebe/businessservices/adjudicationreports/

The Adjudication Reporting Centre reports on the progress of adjudication in the UK. These reports examine trends in the number of adjudication nominations and on various aspects of the adjudication process.  For use by the construction and property industries, these reports contain data supplied by the Adjudicator Nominating Bodies (ANBs) and by adjudicators directly.

Whilst there is no particular reference to NEC, inevitably some of the adjudication references will be on NEC Contracts so it's good to have some sort of idea of the number of referrals, the trend of successful parties, primary subjects of the disputes, time limit compliance, and so on. Quite interesting!

'Trust, but verify'

Another interesting quote which appears to have been was originally said by Russians as one of their proverbs. It was later made famous by Ronald Reagan, who used it in his dealings with the Soviet Union.

So what is the relevance to NEC3 Contracts? Clause 10.1 of NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC) gives an obligation of those parties named to act in a spirit of mutual 'trust'. When it comes to using eg Option C, when the Project Manager decides how much auditing of Contractor's Defined Cost should take place and when, I wonder how much more emphasis we put on the word 'verify' rather than the word 'trust'? Surely we should expect the Contractor by and large to only put forward Defined Cost in accordance with the contract, save the odd error of course. If the Contractor doesn't, there are really significant trust issues at stake. So, do we get the balance of these matters right in practice?

I was going to say something about phone/email bugging, but I won't as this is a highly professional discussion board....

'The secret is to gang up on the problem, rather than each other'

This quote, from Thomas Stallkamp, compliments the NEC early warning process superbly well. Clause 16.3 of the NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC) demands that '...at a risk reduction meeting, those who attend co-operate in...seeking solutions that will bring advantage to all those who will be affected....'.

Collaboration, co-operation and common sense should all prevail when things go wrong.