Framework Contracting, that is well planned from the outset, can be an effective tool to deliver an entire programme of infrastructure with benefits for all sides.

While it is simply one way to address resource constraints and the need for fair apportionment of risk in the evolving construction sector landscape, Framework Contracting is increasingly being used to good effect – especially by local authorities and Council Controlled Organisations.

In summary – What you need to know

• Clients are having to re-consider traditional procurement approaches to attract a market that is resource constrained and more risk adverse than it was a few years ago
• Framework Contracting is a move away from more traditional models, that procured a programme of works one project at a time. Instead, its objective and focus is to deliver an entire programme of works as efficiently and quickly as possible
• The benefits of this type of model include faster delivery times due to efficient procurement processes, and increased quality and innovation – contractors can invest in the development of staff and subcontractors as they have a pipeline of work on the horizon.The benefits of this type of model include faster delivery times due to efficient procurement processes, and increased quality and innovation – contractors can invest in the development of staff and subcontractors as they have a pipeline of work on the horizon.

Background – sector issues created need for change

There is no doubt that the New Zealand construction industry is facing many challenges today. New Zealand is in the unenviable position of being both in a construction boom, but not having the necessary resources to meet demand.

The New Zealand construction market is not alone, Australia is facing very similar issues with some of its main contractor market challenging the markets historical risk profile and announcing that lower risk profiles must be implemented.[1]

Why have so many contractors been placed into liquidation, when the New Zealand infrastructure market is screaming out for more experienced contractors? High profile struggles and failures within the sector have drawn attention to the previous risky (and now unpopular) practice of contractors increasing competitiveness at tender stage by accepting risks that they could not control. This practice resulted in underpriced contracts that essentially funded construction for the client and imperiled the contactor’s operations and ability to complete active projects.

Both clients and contractors are now forced to re-consider previous procurement contracting strategies to respond to the change in the contractor market appetite for risk and the shortage in the industry of resources.

Changing attitudes to risk

We all know that risk should lie with the party best place to control, manage and mitigate risk, however this is not always reflected in the contracts we have seen coming out of the sector.

The common stance that ‘the contractor can price the risk’, needs to be interrogated. Does the contractor have the necessary information to price the risk and has any thought been given as to whether it is value for money for the contractor to price the risk?

Considering allocation of risk fairly does not mean that the contractor market is given an easy ride, simply that the parties have considered risk and fairly allocated it.

With many off-shore construction companies entering the New Zealand market, New Zealand clients are faced with having to re-consider previously held views on limits of liability and allocation of risk. A fair allocation of risk is now critical to ensure that the best contractors will tender for projects. Contractors will no longer consider taking on risks that they cannot control, (eg unknown ground conditions, weather risk, design creep etc).

Contractors’ change in attitude to risk and the severe shortage in the market has led to clients and contractors developing tools on how to best manage risks in a construction contract. Tools such as risk registers, early identification of risks, sharing of risks (eg sharing the time and cost risk), and incentivising management of risks through Performance Regime’s etc, are now all common in contracts.

Securing supply and getting the best out of the market – collaborative framework arrangements

Collaborative framework contracts (or panel contracts) are increasingly being used, especially by entities looking to deliver multiple capital works projects, to ensure that the programme of works will be delivered by a group of pre-selected contractors.

Councils and Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) that have recently implemented Framework Contracts, include Christchurch City Council, Queenstown Lakes District Council and Watercare. Massey University has also implemented a framework arrangement for its capital works programme.

These organisations took the initiative to develop a contract framework that gave them certainty that they could deliver much needed infrastructure over a period of time, while giving the contractor market a much needed pipeline of work, all of which are designed to deliver the best public value.

Features and benefits of Framework Contracting

Importantly, Framework Contracting is not simply a panel of contractors that have pre-qualified in some way to be considered for work in the future.

Typically, contractors under panel type arrangements have simply pre-qualified on the basis of health and safety or insurance criteria and broadly have the skills to deliver the scope of work/services. Such arrangements usually have a large number of pre-qualified contractors/consultants and they are not set up to deliver a set scope of work/services, but rather may be called on by the client to provide a quotation for work as demands and the client sees fit. These arrangements do not provide the market with any guaranteed or reasonable expectation of a pipeline of work, which the market needs to ensure that it retains the necessary resources to deliver projects/services as they arise.

Framework Contracting, on the other hand, is for a specific programme of works/services over a set period of time. The client selects a small number of contractors to deliver that scope, so that each framework contractor has a reasonable expectation, if it performs, that it will get a pipeline of work over the designated time period. Contractors then have a much needed pipeline of work and the client has certainty that it has a small pool of contractors that will deliver the works/services.

This is all achieved while still ensuring the best public value, as the client can ask more than one Framework Contractor to provide a quotation for a particular scope of work/services. Another benefit of these arrangements is that the terms of the contract for delivery of the works/services (which can be based on a New Zealand standard form such as NZS 3910/3916 or CCCS for consultants), has been agreed upfront so there is no time (or money) wasted on procurement or negotiating standard terms.

What is important to the success of these arrangements is that the number of Framework Contractors is limited, so that each contractor has a real opportunity to win work. If there are too many contractors then the arrangement loses the benefits it was intended to create, such as a real opportunity for a pipeline of work and the economies that a client gains from that, such as competitive quotes and availability of contractors.

A note for government agencies – Framework Contracting under the Government Procurement Rules

The new Government Procurement Rules (4th Edition) (GPR) which come into effect on 1 October this year (but which agencies can adopt now), contemplates this type of secondary procurement that a Framework Contract offers.

Rule 57 deals with a Panel of Suppliers and acknowledges that selection of methods for secondary procurement may include a variety of processes such as direct source, competitive quotes from the panel suppliers, and equal division of work.

The Framework Contract will set out the client’s selection method for seeking this secondary procurement, and what that is will depend on how many Framework Contractors there are, the scope of the work, the performance of the Framework Contractors, and whether there is any guarantee of a certain scope of work.

Of course, the selection of the pool of contractors to be part of the Framework Contract would be competitively tendered and, if the GPR are mandatory for a particular agency, that agency must comply with the GPR when setting up the Framework Contract arrangement.

For advice or assistance with Framework Contracts or any other construction law matter please get in touch with one of our specialists.

 

[1] Lendlease made this announcement in relation to its Engineering and Services division in February 2019, and is now trying to sell this poor performing division and exit the civil construction sector.

 

About the Authors

Michael Weatherall

Partner

Lisa Curran

Special Advisor


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adjudication: calculating time over the Christmas period 2019-2020

What are the non-working days over the Christmas period this year?

The builder’s right to fix

Introduction When a dispute over defective building work turns ugly, the owner is sometimes tempted to refuse the builder the opportunity of returning to rectify the defects.  There are risks in this course.  This update considers a recent NSW Supreme Court decision...

BuildLaw Issue 37

October 2019 In this issue, we look at a NSW Supreme Court decision in White Constructions Pty Ltd v PBS Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] which found that the claimant, despite using an expert programmer, failed to sufficiently prove that a delay by the respondent caused delay...

The Supreme Court reinstatement is not a right that can be assigned

The Supreme Court has had the final say on the status of 'on sold' earthquake damaged properties insured by IAG at the time of the Canterbury earthquakes. In a judgment released yesterday, the Supreme Court by 3:2 majority, decided that owners of on sold properties...

Contractual appendices: ignore at your peril

Recently, a subcontractor in the UK was relieved of adverse ground conditions risk, despite contract amendments that sought to allocate that risk to the subcontractor- and it all hinged on an analysis of appendices to the contract. Appending documents to a contract...

New Government Procurement Rules Announced (4th Edition)

The 4th edition of the Government Procurement Rules (Rules) were published this month. They are the good practice standards for government procurement, and were last substantially revised in March 2015. The Rules apply to all public service departments, police,...

Building Law reforms: Raising the bar across the sector

By the Minister for Building and Construction, Jenny Salesa I’m proud of our building and construction industry, and the hard-working individuals that fill the wide and varied roles that make up the sector. It’s our fifth-largest industry by GDP and fourth-largest...

BuildLaw Issue 36

July 2019 In this issue we feature an article by the honourable Minister for Building and Construction, Jenny Salesa, with an invaluable insight on the proposed Building Law Reform Programme. In Case in Brief, Jeremy Glover makes a commentary on two recent...

BuildLaw Issue 35

April 2019 In this issue, we feature an article on the warning apartment owners may take from the recent Court of Appeal decision in Body Corporate S73368 v Otway. This decision creates some financial uncertainty for owners who could now be liable for repair costs to...

When can you go to Adjudication?

Under section 25 of the Act, any party to a construction contract is entitled to refer a dispute arising under that construction contract to adjudication except where the parties have agreed to refer disputes between them to arbitration and the arbitration is an...

Alliancing: what does the new NEC4 Alliance Contract have to offer?

By Claire King Fenwick Elliott LLPIn June 2018 the NEC published its first Alliance Contract “designed for use on major projects or programmes of work where longer-term collaborative ways of working are to be created”.[1] In this Insight we examine what is meant by...

BuildLaw Issue 34

December 2018 In this issue we investigate how the new retentions regime stacked up  in its first court case, in the Wellington High Court. We look at the new NEC4 Alliance Contract, trends in Asian leisure and hospitality, liquidated damages and receivables projects,...

Neutral Evaluation Revisited

by Royden Hindle [1] Neutral evaluation is a relatively little-used tool in the dispute resolution toolbox. Certainly, it has potential drawbacks: a party who is disappointed by an evaluator’s assessment may be slow to accept the outcome, while a party who feels...

A brief introduction to Adjudication

What is adjudication? Adjudication is a unique fast track statutory dispute resolution process or resolving building and construction disputes under the Act. It is the most commonly used dispute resolution process for resolving such disputes. Adjudication is quick and...

Initiating Adjudication: The Notice of Adjudication

Initiating Adjudication: Back to Basics   Part One: The Notice of Adjudication The preparation of the Notice of Adjudication is arguably the most important step in the Adjudication process under the Construction Contracts Act (the Act). It is that document...

Dispute Review Boards: a brief overview

Dispute Review Boards are known by many names. They are often referred to as Dispute Boards, Dispute Avoidance Boards, Dispute Adjudication Boards and Dispute Resolution Boards. Whatever their name, they have become a standard dispute...

Initiating Adjudication: Service of the Notice of Adjudication

Initiating Adjudication: Back to Basics   Part Two: Service of the Notice of Adjudication You have your Notice of Adjudication prepared, but what steps do you need to take to serve it? This note sets out in brief the requirements for service under the...

Initiating Adjudication: Appointing an Adjudicator

Initiating Adjudication: Back to Basics Part Three: Appointing an Adjudicator Following on from Part Two of our three-part series on initiating adjudication, in this note we briefly look at how to appoint an adjudicator under the Construction Contracts Act (the Act)....

BuildLaw Issue 33

November 2018 In this issue we feature delay analysis. We also look at challenging an adjudication determination in various jurisdictions, the perennial chestnut - who are the parties to the contract? force majeure clauses and causation, current problems besetting the...

BuildLaw Issue 32

June 2018 In this issue we feature 'no oral variation clauses in light of the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Rock Advertising v MWB. We also look at the Grenfell Tower Report and the suspension by MBIE of six CodeMark Certificates relating to ACPs, the...

Retentions – maxed out

Common retentions provisions in subcontracts may be unenforceable. In Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz [2018] HCA 5, the High Court of Australia recently held that on its proper construction, the retention provisions in a subcontract that made...

BuildLaw Issue 31

March 2018 In this issue we feature the approach to judicial review of adjudicator's determinations taken by the courts in NSW and New Zealand. We also look at on-demand v conditional bonds, pitfalls of drafting a subsequent agreement on an underlying contract, the...

BuildLaw Issue 30

Dec 2017 In this issue we feature the Singapore Mataban case where the court confirms an adjudicator's decision to disregard an invalid payment response. We also look at the issue of non-conforming cladding that became notorious with the Grenfell Tower fire. Rebecca...

BuildLaw Issue 29

September 2017 In this issue we feature some of the challenges that are the hallmark of oral construction contracts. We also look at whether a duty of good faith applies to granting extensions of time, how final and binding is an expert determination, how not to amend...

BuildLaw Issue 28

June 2017 In this issue we feature natural justice and adjudications. We also look at representative defect claims and exclusion clauses, further amendments to the Arbitration Act, and the recent New Zealand Court of Appeals decisions in Ebert Construction v Sansom...

BuildLaw Issue 27

March 2017 In this issue we feature new changes to the Construction Contracts Act - the new statutory trust model for retentions which came into force on 31 March 2017 including the late introduction of a 'complying instrument' option as a means of protecting...

BuildLaw Issue 26

December 2016 In this issue we feature recent and imminent changes to the Construction Contracts Act - consultants included as from 1 September 2016 and a new statutory trust model for retentions comes into force on 31 March 2017. We also look at the 'Cinderella of...

BuildLaw Issue 25

September 2016 In this issue we feature "The Penalties Doctrine in International Construction Contracting: Where to from here?" - a paper delivered by Professor Doug Jones AO to the Society of Construction Law New Zealand Inc. in August of this year. We also feature a...

BuildLaw Issue 24

June 2016 In this issue we feature 'Judicial Remedies for Construction Defects: Common Law, Equity or Statute', a paper prepared by Philip Britton and delivered by Philip to the Society of Construction Law New Zealand Inc in March of this year. We also present...

BuildLaw Issue 23

March 2016 In this issue we feature construction professionals with two articles highlighting the risks associated with providing professional services and the standards society expects, and the law demands, of professionals, and a further article highlighting the...