Yes I agree, please share with me, I would like to see the legislation and I have recently observed the change in contractor's attitude in negotiation from UK.

The most recent change is the implementation of the European Directives into UK Law, through the issue of the 2015 Public Contracts Regulations. This dictates Government procurement rather than standard commercial arrangements. Section 83 indicates a minimum contract record retention of the contract duration where they are over a certain value: As most contracts have an extended liability life of at least 6 years and as we have a wider obligation to maintain public records, then policy in my government Department is to err on the side of caution and retain for 6-7 years. The legislation is found HERE www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/102/pdfs/uksi_20150102_en.pdf

I'm not sure what the change of law mentioned could relate to - other than what Shaun is referencing.

I would look to follow i) your organisations own information management policy (if it exists - as they should have taken account of relevant law/regulations for your company); or ii) if there is no records policy - then as Shaun says, capturing information and storing information based on the potential risk of claims which would be capped based on the Limitations Act 1980.

The only thing I'd add to point below (for England and Wales jurisdiction) is anything executed as a deed has a limitation period of twelve years rather than six.

Hi,

I'm just trying to understand your position.
Considering that you are managing all contractual relationship with another company (buy and sell side) sounds actually good from your company perspective. It would mean, that your leadership can expect you to have a full overview about the contractually back and forth with this JF. Therefore I assume it's hard to change the mind of your leadership, since I would expect them to see your doublerole as positive.
However on the other side, there is your personal position, meaning being something in the middle of a sandwich, right? I'm not sure about your empowerment, but in worst case you have also very limited authority to change some company rules (discounts, penalties, payment conditions, acceptance criteria etc.). And on buy side you usually have different contractual expectation than on sell side. I assume, this is the tricky part in your situation. Fulfilling the internal requirements for buy- and sell side with the same contractual partner at the same time (and maybe also your partner asks you if you are a bit crazy, since requesting sooo different contracts when you are either on sell side or on buy side).

When the conditions your company expect in contracts are very different on sell side and buy side, this should be communicated as an issue (to your leadership). I think there are 2 options as solution: either the requested second CM as you suggest, or an escalation to the leadership to align clear buy and sell conditions between your company and the JF, which are equal to both parties. such framework conditions would make at least your position more clear. And maybe there won't be anymore need of a split of the CM roles buy side and sell side?

Since I couldn't find many information in your post, I hope, this is somehow helpful?
If your uncomfortable position has other reasons, please let me know.

BR

Kristin

I probably would start collecting facts: Firstly, establish the relationship between Your Company ("Y Company") and Company X ("X Company") by looking at any specific, written agreement about the services ("X and Y Services"). Also, establish clarity around (1) Y Company's services to be provided to X Company, and (2) X Company's services to be provided to Y Company. At this point, are there any conflicts that you can see/anticipate in your ability as the Contract Manager during the provision of X and Y Services, that perhaps could result in non-performance or non-compliance? Also, how do you escalate and cure any issues of non-performance (for example)? Secondly, I would review the files documenting any legal review, if any, prior to said agreement being reviewed for signature/execution. Were there any concerns that were raised and eventually resolved (internally)? AT the very least, you could start with the resource allocation -- that is, regarding your time management and how to better allocate your skills - in developing your case. Hope this helps. Regards ~ Rose

Thanks Jessica for posting this question. I appreciate all the inputs from everyone most especially Jason's reply. Like many others, suggesting to our vendors the use of our company templates for professional services is always a challenge. But as Jason suggested, explaining the benefits of using the company template (e.g. easy approval of subsequent statements of work once an MSA has been approved) makes the vendor think and eventually agree. Of course, there is negotiation in the process. It is not a straightforward demand of asking them to accept the template per se but making them aware of the benefits does help.

Since this discussion started almost 2 years ago, the world of technology has progressed and IACCM can today offer a service to validate 'contract norms'.

A challenge for buyers and suppliers is that their templates start from positions of self interest and naturally this creates contention and delay. It is now quick and relatively easy for us to provide members with insight to what is a normal position / term for any particular type of. Ontract. This allows internal discussion of the desirable business position and of course informs external discussion to accelerate agreement.

Even though it has been a long time since Jessica posted this, I would like to add my comment (may be somebody is still interested in this topic). Usually, I don't face problems with internal clients in the way they don't want to share the template with our customers. On the other hand of course, customers sometimes come back with their template (instead of any comments/tracked changes in our template) or, if not such a "strong" company to insist on their template, they send our template back with all important clauses deleted and replaced with their template wording. Sometimes it is just a matter of wording, and when I see the content is the same and can imagine how long would it take them to have our wording reviewed and approved, I agree with theirs instead. However, sometimes it is really a totally different story, setting us in such an unpleasant situation, that the best option would be not to sign the contract at all. What I learned is, that is not only a question of the size of a company or its hierarchy (=how many approvals do they need), it is often also a "cultural" thing. Some nations have negotiations or even fighting for a win in their veins, and they push back just as a matter of principle. When you set up relevant points in front of them, they usually agree and you get their respect. A great distinguishing model here is the one of Hofstede, which was also mentioned in one of the modules.
Coming back to Jessica's comment, I sometimes face a different problem - internal clients wish to send the template immediately to the customer without any prior discussions or involvements of Contracts. They simply tend to find somewhere a blank template and go out. I always need to explain, that Contracts need to see it and that we, Contracts, are the one responsible for it. Even though using a template, every single deal is unique and a template needs to be adjusted not only with regards to the deal's specific, but also based on our experience with the customer (e.g. I know Czech companies insist on having their ID and information about incorporation in the legal name and address description - if I wouldn't place it in the contract prior sending to the customer, we would look stupid and like we don't care about customer's needs at all. the same is with Russian customers, who, due to their law requirements, need to have bank details explicitly written in the agreement - so I won't release any draft for their review without inserting those bank details).
So I think nobody can only focus on one side of the business - I believe it is not only about customers (CRM) but about relationship with the internal clients (trusted advisor) as well.

Hi Jessica
This is a common problem. Many of the relationships with indirect
suppliers are less formal and may have been in place for years, leading to resistance over use of standard templates.

It is of course important to establish whether the issue is just general resistance or whether the standards are not really appropriate to the range of indirect relationships required, or lack required flexibility.

We do have benchmark data at IACCM on cycle times and will be issuing reports on the latest information at the end of April. It should be possible to provide interim data if you need it sooner.

Tim

Internal Template application rather than the one of the supplier is usually a requirement nevertheless the real issue behind is do we protect ourself correctly. Legal usually is validating a template that he wants verybody contract manager to apply. As legal ressources are scarce and expensive ressources it is ovious that this is the first thing that should be pushed. Once you know that he does not work the more complex but more interesting solution for the company is to look at the mandatory clauses that are requested from the contract. So instead of pushing your template you should fight on the mandatory clauses. Fall back position should be created as a handbook of best practices.

Ms. Prendergast,

Templates, while easy to copy and work with, present a challenge to many companies in part because the template is usually written from one side or the other, providing all the advantages to the author's side and none to the recipient. This is frequently seen in EULAs, where the equivalent of "Not only do we have all the rights, but you are lucky we let you use our product at all, you horrible little vendor!" is common contract parlance.

So how do you overcome the natural inclination of a vendor to resist your templates? The same way you advertise anything else!

Make the option of using your product (the templates) both appealing and advantageous to the vendor. When sending internal templates to a vendor for use, do not present them as a "use or lose" option. Instead, deliver the items with the contracting equivalent of a box of chocolates: Provide vendors a summarized explanation of the benefits offered through using your templates. Bullet-oriented briefs are more effective here, as they provide not only a quick list for the vendor to read, but a point-summary for the vendor's contract manager to use in presenting the overwhelming benefits offered by your templates to their management.

Explain (again in short form) the potential realized cost savings of template use, including ease of follow-on contract development by way of utilizing your "easily-tailored, customer-specific templates." Make every effort to ensure using your templates is so much easier than having the vendor's contract department reinvent the procurement wheel that the vendor (who at this point you should view as your customer) would actually be acting against their own best interest to do anything other than to use your templates.

As M. Fouquier rightly points out, the usual greatest challenge is getting your templates past the legal department guardians. Providing a brief mandatory clause list may be a more advantageous initial step, as it tends to ease legal's protective instinct toward its client(s). Once you present not merely a palatable offering of clauses, but a tasty array of work-easing options to the vendor (and the vendor's legal counsel), your job is 90% done. Offering updates and non-critical individual tailoring options (which would not, of course, change the mandatory clauses) gives the vendor the personalized attention so critical to obtaining their final approval. It is the after-dinner apertif of contracting: "Not only do we offer all these options, but our true focus is on YOU."

Granting the vendor a choice of either (a) using your banquet of templates designed to ease their workload or (b) going through the tedious grind of negotiating back and forth on every item for months makes you and your templates the obvious and preferred choice every time.

Hi Mark, Happy to discuss. Send me an email via marie.cullen@medibank.com.au and I can talk about the principles I use.

In my view I don't believe, as a community, we have fully bottomed out all the risks associated with these types of engagement.

M

Interesting point, Michelle.

I´d strongly encourage you to raise this question also within the IACCM technology network, which is a micro-community, where you will be able to get insights to new trends in this specific field and where I am sure you´ll have the opportunity to share ideas regarding the topic you have brought:

www.iaccm.com/gp/technology

Also, please check our library: www.iaccm.com/resources/
where, you will find some articles about 'escrow agreements' for the software arena and other topics associated with risk management in the hardware world as well. By analogy you will explore ideas regarding hardware coming from best practices and escrow programs with the goal of risk mitigation

www.iaccm.com/resources/;

Best regards
Pablo

Hi Michelle - saw your post. For hardware: having a refresh plan with your supplier following a bit of a mutual benchmark, to see how best to provision for your upcoming capacity needs, might give some assurance. For services or subscriptions-based tech: having a documented 'cookbook' of key players and tech needed to recreate the service, including a list of any solutions 'not commercially available' or not easily re-purchased in Canada updated, might also be helpful to gage the difficulty of transitioning off your current tech,if needs be.

Those two governance-type processes, along with the typical supplier obligation to reasonably cooperate with any successor and to provide some mutually-agreed orderly termination assistance, might serve you well (outside escrow for software). Hope that offers some ideas...good luck. Cheers, Robin

Agree - this was quite an insightful article. I've always believed that it should work in reverse - that you should set the objective and then leave it up to individuals to work out how to get there, which is what the article says except for specifying that their roles need to be clear. I believed that if roles were less clearly defined then it gave people scope to expand their remit, however I can see why this can cause confusion.

I do not think there are any legal roadblock to do so, if the parties agree to make the amendment that should be it.