Risk in RIAI &GCCC CONTRACTS

bigboned

Hi

Can anybody point out the risk items in the RIAI AND THE GCCC FORMS OF CONTRACTS

and also any information on how each contract deals with the risk would be great

Thanks

Strolling Bones

The risks attracting to any project are potentially endless. Contracts help to clarify the responsibility of the builder AND the client during the course of the works and afterwards too.

What type of risk in particular concerns you ?

Drift

In a very general sense it is the perceived wisdom that the GCCC form lessens the client risk at the expense of the contractor when compared to the RIAI form.

I'd assume contractors include a premium on their GCCC tenders to account for this.

With regards to the specifics - each little clause has it's own specifics so you'd almost have to analyse each clause in one form and compare it to similar clauses in the other - a thankless job!!!

Are you doing this for a college project? If so I don't think you'll find someone here to do your homework for you!

kkelliher

bigboned wrote: »

Hi

Can anybody point out the risk items in the RIAI AND THE GCCC FORMS OF CONTRACTS

and also any information on how each contract deals with the risk would be great

Thanks

This is a question that many people pay a decent amount to their solicitors for advice on and not something that can be easily summarised in a forum. I would advise you to seek direct advice depending on your actual need.

kkelliher

Drift wrote: »

I'd assume contractors include a premium on their GCCC tenders to account for this.

That was the idea but then along came the downturn and the race to the bottom which has resulted in major issues with the GCCC contract and which has resulted in its current review. There is a very good summary of the review and issues with the contract here

galwaytt

...imho, the GCCC is a loaded dice, and ultimately turns into a row about something with someone at some stage. I'd argue they've delivered poor value.

The intention is well meaning, but the premise of it falls apart. Consider the notice about a cost implication on a poorly, or barely defined detail. You're supposed to advise the client of the claim in good time etc. This is all well & good, but on a working site where progress must me made on a daily basis, what do you do when admin takes weeks - or months - to resolve ? Down tools ? That's hardly practicable. And ultimately a row about that too !!

And there's also subbie-bashing. General contractors have the 'do it for this price or don't do it at all' mentality, and it's a race to the bottom in terms of quality and everything else from Day 1. Witness that school in.............Limerick, Tipp ? last December 12months where the subbie went in and took out his windows & doors..................

The whole thing is a mess imho.

Strolling Bones

All of the above was stated over and over to the blazers in DOE - the same who gave us SI 9 2014.
They know best you see.

Dardania

I'm not sure why the government went GCCC route - why not just use one of the established FIDIC contracts?

bigboned

Drift wrote: »

In a very general sense it is the perceived wisdom that the GCCC form lessens the client risk at the expense of the contractor when compared to the RIAI form.

I'd assume contractors include a premium on their GCCC tenders to account for this.

With regards to the specifics - each little clause has it's own specifics so you'd almost have to analyse each clause in one form and compare it to similar clauses in the other - a thankless job!!!

Are you doing this for a college project? If so I don't think you'll find someone here to do your homework for you!

Thanks for the above but I'm not looking for anyone to do my homework!!! It's a basic question to any1 with knowledge, and a fair one too as far as I can see.

I have little experience in either of them and I'm looking for a quick way to get somewhere close to being up to speed,

No point reinventing the wheel,

Drift

Everyone from both the consultant and contractor side will have their own experiences about where/when either type of contract benefitted or failed them.

Which side of the "divide" are you coming from? - Consultancy or Contractor (or Client) ?

kkelliher

bigboned wrote: »

Thanks for the above but I'm not looking for anyone to do my homework!!! It's a basic question to any1 with knowledge, and a fair one too as far as I can see.

I have little experience in either of them and I'm looking for a quick way to get somewhere close to being up to speed,

No point reinventing the wheel,

This shows how unknowledgeable you are on the topic. This is not something you can just switch up to speed on. You will only learn the ins and outs of the contracts and their operation through examination, case law and experience. If it was easy everyone would know them and there would be no issues. That is clearly not the case. The GCCC is a clouded document with little law to back it up as most decisions on context and definition are done in private conciliation and therefore the information is not flowing to the wider industry.

Drift

kkelliher wrote: »

That was the idea but then along came the downturn and the race to the bottom which has resulted in major issues with the GCCC contract and which has resulted in its current review. There is a very good summary of the review and issues with the contract here

I hadn't seen this document until now. Food for thought and bedtime reading for a while!

Based on the executive summary it makes some great points and good proposals but some questionable ones too.

I'm really not sure about the BOQ taking primacy over drawings and specs although I think I support the reasoning behind it's proposal. Puts a lot of responsibility on the QS's shoulders - what are the implications for QS Indemnity Insurance?


Edit: To expand on the BoQ taking primacy:

• A lot easier for the contractor to price the project
• More "arguments" on site as the professional says "It's on my drawing" and the contractor saying "Well it's not on the bill so I didn't price it"
• Consequently - more claims, but possibly at a lower level?

kkelliher

Drift wrote: »

I hadn't seen this document until now. Food for thought and bedtime reading for a while!

Based on the executive summary it makes some great points and good proposals but some questionable ones too.

I'm really not sure about the BOQ taking primacy over drawings and specs although I think I support the reasoning behind it's proposal. Puts a lot of responsibility on the QS's shoulders - what are the implications for QS Indemnity Insurance?


Edit: To expand on the BoQ taking primacy:

• A lot easier for the contractor to price the project
• More "arguments" on site as the professional says "It's on my drawing" and the contractor saying "Well it's not on the bill so I didn't price it"
• Consequently - more claims, but possibly at a lower level?

The BOQ would allow for more clarity in the process, yes more requirement on QS profession but this should be well received in the profession as it reinstates them into a position with a greater role in contract administration. It also allows for more equitable tendering and will avoid the below cost model currently in play as it will revert to a like with like comparison on tenders.

Drift

I agree that it'll make the tendering process more transparent and less resource hungry but I don't think anyone wants to be back in the old days of massive day rates claims based on one slip in the bill. I remember there were people who contractors directly tasked with trawling through the bill to spot things that had been missed so that the rate for that item could be on the high side - thereby building their profit into extras that they had planned before the tender had even been awarded.

On a separate note: I'd relish a little extra trust being given to the design teams by GCCC clients.

galwaytt

The problem with the BOQ method is that it relies on the efficacy of the work that generates that BOQ. And in modern building, this is a permanent keep-up exercise. Every new product, or application of an existing one demands a lot of homework. And in a price-led environment somethings gotta give. ....

And contractors are still relying on the non-specified and extras for their margin. That's still happening.

kkelliher

galwaytt wrote: »

The problem with the BOQ method is that it relies on the efficacy of the work that generates that BOQ. And in modern building, this is a permanent keep-up exercise. Every new product, or application of an existing one demands a lot of homework. And in a price-led environment somethings gotta give. ....

And contractors are still relying on the non-specified and extras for their margin. That's still happening.

As a QS I dont see that as a problem. The problem with the current model is the fact that the Contractor carries the risk for incomplete and inept design. The requirement to bring the BOQ to the fore will require more complete design prior to tender and any inefficiencies in this are will correctly result in contractor claims which at present are needlessly hard fought. Like any commercial transaction there has to be certainty in contract which the GCCC does not currently provide but which a BOQ should be able to define clearer.