Terms of contract for low value fit out constuction & engineering work

Craig Turnbull - MacRoberts Solicitors
Online advisor - 8 posts

Bespoke contracts from employers are never particularly well received by contractors, however, coming from an employer of your standing, I expect that you may have a better chance than most in insisting upon your own terms.

If you go with a standard form, other than FIDIC, the JCT Intermediate Form is worth considering or, alternatively, the NEC (ECC) form is becoming increasingly popular.

It is impossible to be more specific than this in commenting on general circumstances, however, I hope that this helps.

Craig Turnbull

Marc Hanson
Member - 4 posts

Trudi

I'm coming to this a bit late but am intrigued as to why you use the FIDIC short form. Is the work done overseas? If not its a pretty unorthodox choice as I expect many UK contractors, especially those doing smallish jobs, will add a bit to the price due to a lack of familiarity with it.

Craig is right that contractors won't be happy with a bespoke form of contract and will undoubtably price it. You'd also have to get someone to produce it which would cost money. A better bet would be to amend one of the industry standard forms - that way you'd get a better balance of risk (many are too favourable to contractors) but contractors would still be on a contract that they are familiar with.

As to which standard form, if your works are going to be carried out in the UK and have an engineering slant then the ICE minor works form might be appropriate. If they're building works then the JCT Minor Works form or the Intermediate form (as referred to by Craig) might be appropriate. Wouldn't recommend the NEC (ECC) contract - I find it unreadable. One thing you should bear in mind is whether the contractor will be undertaking any design. He usually will be even on the smallest jobs, especially if they involve any mechanical or electrical works. The ICE and FIDIC contracts cater for contractors undertaking limited design but the JCT contracts referred to above do not. You'd need to amend them if you wanted to use them where design was to be undertaken. The other thing you need to bear in mind is who will be administering the contract. Many standard forms envisage that a separate contract administrator will be engaged - you'll need to amend the contract you use if someone in house will be administering the contract (ie the FM).

If you want further info you can contact me via the online advice area.

Good luck

Marc

Anonymous

First of all you must decide whether you mean "Small" works or "Simple" works. There is no direct relationship between size and complexity. It is perfectly possible to have a huge but really straightforward job, or a small but incredibly complicated one, and this must be reflected in the choice of Contract.

There are usually two or three main reasons influencing the choice of a contract. As alluded to above, the requirements for Contractor's Design is one; the choice and control of subcontractors and suppliers is another. But the overriding factor is familiarity. More often than not the Client "always" uses a particular form, which is doctored or amended to fit the particular circumstances.

Out of interest, I understand that JCT sells more Minor Works forms than anything (and anyone) else, and I believe they are working on new versions to include contractor design. But can anyone tell me what role the Quantity Surveyor plays under this form?

Anonymous

Roland is correct that the JCT sell more Minor Works forms than any other JCT form of contract - I believe the figure is circa 20k a year. Its also the most widely used standard form in the country by a large margin. They are producing a with design version but this is a good 6 months off. The MW form does not have a defined role for a QS (although there is an option to record the name of the QS in the recitals/ articles) but theres nothing to stop the Employer delegating the architect/ contract administrators valuation and other cost functions in the contract to an independent QS.

Anonymous

For most small works the JCT Minor Works contract has a value. It falls down when wanting to nominate a subcontractor to be supervised by the main contractor, e.g. subcontract carpet layer. It also proved to be the wrong one for a lift installation in an existing building where the builder ought to have been the subcontractor to the lift contractor. The intermediate contract seems too "heavy" for jobs small enough to be non-notifiable under CDM regulations.