Home
> Uncategorized > Writing an Effective Scope of Services – NEC3 Professional Services Contract
Writing an Effective Scope of Services – NEC3 Professional Services Contract
I’m currently in the process of preparing an Invitation to Tender for six sustainability consultants. My first task is to create a suitable scope of services within the framework of the NEC 3 PSC, which I’ve completed in draft form, I’m waiting out for feedback from the procurement and contracts manager. In the meantime I was wondering if anyone had any advice or experience they could share regarding writing an effective scope of services?
Categories: Uncategorized
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
John, the key to writing scopes has always been to keep them as simple as possible and to only attempt to describe the effect you want to see delivered. The trap that even experienced infra hands fall into when writing scopes for DIO contractors is to also try and describe how you want to see something delivered. As soon as you make the move from What to How, you start to load yourself with risk and expense. The example I use on the JIU course is if you want a new cook house capable of feeding 200 people at a sitting that is all you ask for. If you start adding things like, but there must be so many fire doors and the kitchen must contain specific types of equipment, if it turns out that these requests don’t comply with fire regs or hygiene standards, it is your fault and the cost to correct the issues lies with you.
In order to get around making sure the requested change complies with regulations, you tack the relevant reference onto the requirement. In this case it would then become a new cookhouse, capable of feeding 200 people at a sitting that complies with JSP 315 Scales. This is the reference standard against which all MOD buildings must be constructed.
That’s it in a nut shell, the only thing that takes a bit of time is that you do your research to make sure you include all the relevant regulations you want the deliverable to comply with. Simples.
Fully agree with Jim. It’s ‘micro-management’ vs ‘mission command’ in uniform speak. You’re flirting between specification by outcome (safer) and specification by method (dangerous). You’d be brave to specify by method for a sustainability consultant (expert?!) unless you’re absolutely confident you are more competent than the person you hope to award the contract to.
My experiences so far with specifications resonates with Daz’ comments.
I am dealing with getting a transformer approved for use by Metro Transport Melbourne. The manufacturer supplies information when their product does not meet MTM specifications. One of the specifications states the specific method of priming and painting the enclosures:
8.3.5 All metal surfaces shall be prepared in accordance with Australian Standard “Metal Finishing –Preparation and Pre-Treatment of Surfaces” AS 1627 prior to the application of protective primer to Australian Standard “Paints for Steel Structures –Epoxy Primer (two packs)” AS 3750.13.
8.3.6 The exterior of the transformer enclosure shall be painted in accordance with Australian Standard “Paints for Steel Structures –Full Gloss Epoxy (two packs)” AS 3750.10 and colour “storm grey:in accordance with Australian Standard “Colour Standards for General Purposes” AS 2700S.
Powder coating is recognised method of applying paint which is well known for its durability and adherence to metal surfaces. The specification was seemingly written before powder coating was ‘popular’ (or economically feasible). The manufacturers can do it like the spec but the finish will be similar but cost more and take more process time and type approval application time.
Surely the specification should state ‘paint finish must remain on enclosure without degradation for a period of not less than 15 years’ for example? If the paint peels after 10 years, the manufacturer replaces at their cost.
The only thing to watch out for when using output spec Iain, is to make sure you are not loading risk and therefore cost into the requirement. The reason for using specs like the AS you quoted is that the industry understands them and knows the risks associated with them are low, hence they will just buy the appropriate product and not add a chunk to the price for risk.
The issue with the requirement you have provided is that the spec used by the company or within the Australian equivalent of NBS may now be out of date…….unless powder coating has been shown to be not as effective as the paint standard in tests. The only way to check would be to see what the performance specification for powder coating is in the AS for that product, to see if it has been tested and proven to last as long and be as durable as the paint finish. If it is, the tender documents used by your company need to be updated to allow VFM to be achieved in this element of the project.