Paul Lomas-Clarke reviews another contract belonging to JCT’s 2005 suite, while Roger Knowles, below, asks if now is the right time to award costs to the winning sides of industry adjudications
Comparing the JCT Intermediate Form IFC 98 with the Intermediate Building Contract 2005 is like comparing a car designed and built in the 1980s with a model currently being released to the general public.
The new contract performs the same intended task as the old, using the same principle clauses worded in much the same way. What we find is a bigger overall size (an extra 25 pages), more sophistication and special features.
But underneath is the same approach, style and phraseology – good and bad.
So what is new? We now have five pages of definitions. Interestingly, some definitions take you straight to the various clauses with no other explanation, so why have a definition which defines matters elsewhere?
The added sophistication includes incorporating the clauses into sections in much the same style as the ECC forms with headings and section numbers.
Among the special features:
- much clearer clause concerning partial taking over arrangements, nothing new here but express terms removing the common law position
- clearer opening up and testing provisions
- the incorporation of what are generally called Vesting Certificates
- a new facility to re-value other work if associated work is affected by a variation
- a blocking or guillotine clause much the same as is found in the GC Works contracts limiting the right to loss and expense claims if recovery can be made under any other head
The new form provides reasonably sophisticated arrangements for collateral warranties, from just about any of the contracting parties to any of the employer/funder/tenants.
In addition there are new clauses concerning advance payment bonds and bond arrangements for offsite material payment arrangements.
Generally there is more detail in many of the clauses we have been using for the past 20 years but the same old complex interrelationship of clauses.
Is it a better vehicle? Is it an easier contract to use? The answer, as with comparing the 2005 car with the old model, is that you have to read the manual very carefully – more carefully than before – and it will probably work well. So great, until it goes wrong, but we all know what taking it into a garage costs.
Source
QS News
Postscript
Paul Lomas-Clarke is executive director at JR Knowles