Contract Admin…
Having recently moved into the Contract Admin office for a couple of weeks I have had my eyes opened to a few things.
It appears there are several major subcontractors who have been working on site for the last few weeks without a contract. This issue has raised its head as we are currently processing many of the subbies’ progress claims and the figures aren’t adding up. The differing figures result from conflicting terms and condition. Unfortunately, as much of the works are underway, Multiplex has little leverage as the cost of replacing the subbies almost definitely outweigh the benefits. This means the subbies are in a very powerful position and are almost dictating their terms. It has also caused cash flow issues for some of the leaner companies as their anticipated millionaires’ weekend has been postponed. We are now exercising diplomacy and smoothing over the frictions, whilst also attempting to negotiate reasonable terms and conditions in order to finalise the contracts.
The contracts in question were the responsibility of an administrator who recently left without closing them out. Signed off, switched off…
Whilst on the subject of contracts, below is a link which may be of use to anyone else about to enter the CA world…
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Interesting Andy. Exactly the opposite issues over here. Any contract signed by a ‘General Contractor’ with the Government is so water-tight and specific that seemingly anything they do that we don’t like could be interpreted as a breach of contract. The job specification on its own runs to 4330 pages of text! Over here the Government are in such a powerful position that the only leverage the contractor has is time; in that they sometimes rely on the lack of it to try and get sub-standard/non-conforming work accepted. So long as the Government don’t overpay for ‘work done to date’ there seems to be nothing the Contractor can realistically do to influence the situation. The Government also retains the privilege of being the ‘site manger’ further restricting Contractor freedom. Combine that with deep pockets to counter any legal action and the only option really left open to any Contractor is to get on with it and do what they’re told! Don’t F*** with US Government, they’re in charge!
It must be, however, that all government work comes with a price tag that reflects the risks and requirements. It also follows that if a contractor is new to the Govt game and underestimates the number of hoops involved they will comply entirely at the beginning but start to feel squeezed when there is no relaxation down stream and so have to balance their desire to be seen to engage whole heartedly with the need to make money to survive. This is likely to work towards a challenge in terms of standards because there is little compromise on the client side. All in all it is a recipe for high cost, low quality, time delay and unhappy relationships building as time goes by. The only instance I can see this working well is when all contractors are savvy and over bid by a significant margin such that the cost checks are adjusted and work is achievable with fair/good profit within the constraints of government systems: Client pays over the odds but gets what he wants for less than the price he anticipated and quicker than hoped for.
Sorry for jumping in late on this one!
Kukie, does this approach make it difficult to find subbies? Nobody reads 4330 pages, some of our subbies don’t even read a drawing.
Andy. I’m referring to the contract we (i.e. the Government/Client/NSA/USACE) has with the General Contractor, which we hold them to quite rigorously.
I’m not really sure how the GC goes about securing/vetting/contracting to their own subbies, but you’re right that they’re unlikely to pass on the whole contract and expect them to read/understand it word for word. We get round this by having a long multi-stage lead-up process which every subbie is required to go through for every “definable feature of work” before they can commence working on site. This generally involves a vetting process, an off-site visit, an initial office meeting (where the relevant sections of the specification, method of work, health and safety etc are discussed and agreed), then each subbie is required to produce an example of their work on site for approval by USACE before they can begin work in earnest. You’d think with such an exhaustive process that standards would be high, but apparently not!
Andy, we had a lot of subbies working without signed contracts until the incident in Canberra ( http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/person-dies-at-university-of-canberra-hospital-work-site-20160804-gqlgqm.html ) . After that no one was allowed on site without having completed all the contractual and insurance paperwork.
Pleased the departmental move has been a success.
Andy and others
JM recommended Civil Engineering Procedure as a useful background book – it explains contractual terminology relatively simply,
I picked up an older edition ridiculously cheaply.