Just give me the badge, please

Despite the hype about partnering, many of the industry's sharpest players see it as an ideal opportunity to take advantage of the other side.

Worst of all, the pressure on public bodies to partner or starve is creating the untenable situation where any kind of disagreement is regarded as a black mark on the project copybook.

On one "partnering" project in South Wales the major public sector client had no idea the main contractor was taking retentions from 48 package contractors despite there being a 'no retention' clause in the contract. Neither were they aware the contractor had slipped in its own onerous terms between it and the subcontractors. Did this feature in the project publicity? Take a wild guess.

Since collaborative working is a relatively simple concept ("we work together to achieve a common goal") many have fallen into the trap of thinking it's easy.

Newsflash: It isn't.

The situation now exists where some contractors see nothing wrong in saying to the client: "This is a partnering contract, we want more money, we should get it without any argument." And some contract administrators are responding, "Oh, go on then!"

I once spent a pleasant hour following a partnering seminar responding to a major contractor's questions about how to fiddle the open book accounting system on a job they were bidding for. And if you really think this is a one-off, you're kidding yourself.

Clients are not above criticism, though, either. Many see partnering as a licence to dither. Back in the good old days designs were signed off and locked down. Now clients are chanting Oliver's catchphrase: "Please sir, can I have some more?"

some clients see partnering as a licence to dither

Let's go back to my earlier example in Wales. Why didn't the client know the contractor was taking advantage of the subcontractors? The client just wanted the partnering badge without the hard work, just like a bad boy scout who doesn't want to learn to tie a sheepshank yet wants the badge to show off to his mother.

In essence what I'm saying is that even in partnering you cannot abandon good commercial controls. One side giving all the concessions simply leads to resentment, as the wreckage on the steps of any divorce court will tell you.

Successful partnering also needs honesty. For instance, contractors are always complaining that in the end clients accept the lowest price. Well, part of the reason for that is that contractors tend to inflate their quality ratings. They all say they have brilliant health and safety records, are fantastic at value engineering and have zero defects. Is this the same industry Latham and Egan rounded on? With all those tick boxes scoring 10 out of 10 the client is left only with the cost element upon which to base his choice. It's not rocket science, is it?

Most worrying about this is the number of times contractors say they have a certain resource, like a rapid response project team, or bit of computer kit and then turn out not to have it. That's a nasty surprise for anyone if they've just entered into a contract.

None of this is helped by the amount of spin generated by 'demonstration' projects. "We saved £90m by using pencils instead of wall ties," runs the usual line. "HB pencils are best as they are flexible enough to allow for differential settlement."

These soundbites place unrealistic expectations on those new to the field. This leads to problems for all parties when projects cannot live up to the hype.