Gibbs' analysis highlights various instances of sub-subcontractor abuse. These include passing sole responsibility for materials, plant and equipment on site to the sub-subcontractor (clause 8), while then claiming ownership of all goods and materials that are on site, even if no payment has been made (clause 20).
The document also obliges the sub-subcontractor to co-ordinate design work with all other design works on the project (clause 9), an obligation that should fall on the subcontractor and main contractor. Defects liability periods are significantly lengthened by clause 5 of the contract, which states that the defects liability of the sub-subcontractor will run from practical completion of the main contract, not of the sub-subcontractor's work.
SRW's contract also deems that the subcontractor can off-set estimated future damages, costs and expenses against the sub-subcontractor's payment (clause 22) and accelerate works at extra costs to the sub-subcontractor if it forms an opinion that progress is not being maintained (clause 13). Both of these clauses are very powerful and unfair considering that no evidence of damages or delays needs to be produced in order for the subcontractor to act.
In a statement to EMC, Skanska said: "It is Skanska's policy wherever possible to allocate risk in contracts fairly and treat others as we would like to be treated...we will review Mr Gibb's comments to see whether we can sensibly improve upon SRW's contract conditions. In an area where views can reasonably differ as to what is fair and what is not, SRW will remain vigilant and receptive to the views of its supply chain."
Source
Electrical and Mechanical Contractor
No comments yet