Carolyn, while we wait for someone else from our community to share with us their "best practices" identified in regards to this point, I wanted to provide this link www.iaccm.com/resources/; where, as you will se, it is covered the matter related to the drafting of enforceable teaming agreements.
Regards
Pablo Cilotta

I have gone through the process of ensuring flow down of terms from prime contracts to subcontracts and understand your feelings. It is laborious. The contracts that I managed had 'mandatory' clauses to be included in the sub-contracts; hence it was somewhat easy to navigate through. We also put in place a simple tracker listing all the clauses and if the sub-contract had complied with the mandatory term flow-down. We referred the matter to the legal team if there was any discrepancy. What I found was that once I completed verification of a sub-contract, other sub-contracts for the same prime contractor was easier to go through.
You could categorise your sub-contract into high (significant),medium and low groups and could vary the mandatory clauses for flow-down as appropriate.

Interesting situation, I may be misunderstanding things here...and correct me if I'm wrong, but typically the point of having a Prime is to "manage" subcontractors and they should negotiate back to back agreements that adequately ensure that as a Prime they can fulfill their obligations...it should also reflect the spirit and intent of the agreement...happy to explore this further.

Hi MC - Agree with you that purpose of the Prime is to "manage" subcontractors... In central Government (not sure if this is required in private sector) sector contracts, it is necessary to ensure that there is a flow-down of the terms to sub-contracts. For example the 'Data Protection' Clause. My response was in this context. The IACCM link given above is a good reference.

My current approach is to have the subcontractor "aware of" the whole contract (coupled to an indemnity if they cause us to be in breach - if I can get it!)

I then add a detailed flow-down of (i) the mandated flowdowns from client - usually things like anti-corruption and audit and (ii) the terms which are essential for us to ensure that the commercial risks are back-to-back - eg. the specific standard of workmanship that the subcontractor must exercise in their design.

Generally speaking this means 5-6 flowdown clauses, for which I either amend terminology by hand or rely on "mutatis mutandis" if I'm short of time.

For 'awareness of the whole' I think the donor clause was from the CECA Blue Book.

Hi Carolyn,

I have also drafted some subcontracts in which I had to ensure that the subcontractor had the same commitment that the prime; as Girija stands, it is very laborious since you need to understand which of the obligations within the prime contract are transferable to the corresponding subco and also you have to modify the wording. I would never attached the entire agreement because of confidentiality concerns and also because usually prime contractors do not wish to share financial details with subcos in order to seek a more profitable negotiation with them.

Bon courage!

Elena

Elena,

You bring up an interesting point. You as the contractor and the owner do not want to share the details of the contract, but want to subs to agree to them. Doesn't that seem unreasonable? I will never agree to something I have not seen. I do get copies where some details are redacted and that is fine, but the text has to be reviewed in order to be agreed to. I would be interested to hear your rebuttal as the contractor in this case when I say I have to see the prime to agree to it.

Kent

Some great discussion point coming through - A recent experience - last month our prime contractor needed to conduct a MRO work package at a location controlled by another party (Subcontractor). As the Prime, they commenced negotiation; however this subcontractor only provided 3 months warranty on their work while our agreement with the prime had a twelve month warranty. The prime formally requested dispensation from the twelve warranty and was rejected due to the following reasons:
1) It is the primes obligation to ensure the test and acceptance of standards and quality of the work
2) The prime included in their financial model, an element of risk which they would absorb based on their contractual obligation.

Part the above negotiation included some issues around IP ownership during the work package being conducted. In this instance we accepted the deviation from the standard IP clauses as we deemed the subcontractor clauses to be reasonable as it didn't affect the operation and future requirements to maintain the vessel.

So while the prime is ultimately responsible for the deliverables, we needed to assess on a case by case situation if any deviations were acceptable...and also had to be careful that we don't set a precedence.

In my experience the Prime Contract is the negotiated version which your company's legal eagles would have negotiated with your client so it would certainly contain more stringent clauses than your company's boiler plates. Usually once the prime contact is negotiated the necessary amendments are made to the the boiler plates to align them with the prime contract. The flow downs are usually attached as "Special conditions" of contract and they take precedence over the 'General Conditions' of contract due to the fact that the GCC are usually amended under SCC and the more stringent approach is adopted. this eliminates any misalignment between the two forms. e.g. 'Limits of Liabilities', 'Indemnification' and 'Insurances' are mostly dictated by Client and the risk must be transferred down to the lower level to protect your company's interest.

Cheers

Asif

Hi
Australia is about to introduce new legislation about unfair contract terms with SMEs. This is going to make it harder for Primes to push terms down for fear of being void. Hopefully this will start new discussions about getting rid of clauses which are unfair!

1. Always remember that if you miss a Clause, it's not the end of the
world, because, as Contractor, you will always be responsible for the
delivery of your contract, regardless of who you choose as your
subcontractor.
2. Check your subcontract template. If your subcontract template and your
Contract and Procurement Principles match, then the Prime Contract
negotiated between you and the Client is much easier to flow down.
3. Semantics. Don't get caught up in the details of the Clause having to be
an exact copy of what you have in your Prime Contract. If it says the
same thing, then it doesn't matter if you use different words or the
words are in a different order.
4. Remember that you are a buffer between you and your subcontractor. As a
company, you do not want the Client getting into your business.
5. The top 8 flow downs (no particular order):
a. Warranty duration
b. Exclusion Clauses
c. Indemnities including pollution
d. Confidentiality
e. Insurance
f. Intellectual Property
g. Benefit Clauses such as paid suspension
h. Days, remember to allow for internal processing as well as Client
processing

There will always be exceptions but number 3 is where most people fail, including the Client.

Don't use the back to back Method unless there are high risks, high value and/or Client appointed Subcontractors and if you plan on using this Method, take that subcontractor's qualifications with you from day one. In addition you need to develop a standard template for Form of Agreement and Exhibits because it isn't possible to just blindly throw your contract at a subcontractor, they are a Third party, and it just doesn't work without some modifications to the Prime Contract.

Hi Carolyn. Depending on cooperation levels of your prospective subcontractor / subconsultant, you can 'seal the deal' with an RFP document and a Letter of Acceptance. If you give me your email address, I can send you a template document I created for implementing back-to-back subcontracts to a prime FIDIC contract.

Hi Keith, this is a very interesting question and I am glad you are undertaking the exercise.

I haven't come across a dynamic tool that would support the sort of pre-analysis you suggest, although it may be that you could adapt one of the systems used by marketing to undertake customer segmentation. Another approach could be to build relevant questions into whatever requirement definition tools you use, cuasing the business to consider the points you make regarding issues such as innovation, likelihood of change etc

In working with another IACCM member, we have developed a model that looks at three core levels of relationship and then overlays the extent to which there is potential uncertainty which would impact the nature of the relationship / terms required. I'll be pleased to discuss with you and share ideas..

Hi Keith. I'm also unaware of the existence of such tools.

My suggestion (assuming you haven't done so already) is to align your organisational objectives with the business cases, service specifications that were developed during the tender process, justifications for contract variations, etc. Once this has been done, identify the commonalities across the service spectrum and then compare against the performance of each contractual arrangement including the extent to which the service is being successfully delivered and then how this may relate to the business activities of the individual business unit. No mean task!

Understanding contract management within broader organisational strategy and commonality that exists between contracts is likely to yield insights into what you're trying to achieve e.g. innovation, appropriately skilled staff, etc. And by taking such an approach, it may increase the likelihood that decision-makers outside of your own business unit who may also benefit from this work will support your efforts more readily.

You may also find as a result of using this type of analysis, the requirement for knowing whether the relationship is growing, etc becomes less relevant as an end in itself - assuming of course that the appropriate aspects of organisational strategy are being delivered as intended through its contractual arrangements and that risk appetite for further value / profit-seeking under each or multiple contract(s) is not being exceeded, and is being properly managed.

In the US, Texas or New York are largely considered "neutral territory" whereas in Europe, until very recently UK law was considered neutral. I think that may change with the recent political upheaval.

Or try international trade law?

www.jus.uio.no/lm/index.html

In the case of one party proposing Indian law and the other proposing Singapore law, the parties may well choose the law of England and Wales as both Indian law and Singapore law are based upon English and Welsh common law. (Note that there is no such concept as "UK law" as one commentator has suggested below).

However, a party should consider a wide range of factors before proposing a particular governing law and should weigh up the legal and commercial advantages and disadvantages of all the options.

One factor may be the degree of certainty that a contract will be interpreted in a particular way. English law adheres to the doctrine of binding precedence. Some legal systems do not. This could lead to significant uncertainty as to how the law will be applied.

In English law, it may be perceived that the courts allow a greater degree of freedom of contract. Subject to certain exceptions, freedom of contract in English law means that commercial parties are completely free to make disastrous bargains. This illustrates the comparative reluctance of the English courts to interfere on policy or other grounds to rewrite the parties' contracts for them.

For example, in English law it is possible, provided very clear wording is used, to include an exclusion clause that excludes any and all liability whatsoever, even for a deliberate breach of contract. And there is still no recognition of a duty of good faith being applied generally to commercial agreements (but watch this space!). This may or may not be an advantage to you but it remains the case that the courts are likely to give effect to the wording of the contract without imposing their opinions as to what does or does not amount to good faith.


And you may wish to consider the approach of a particular legal system to particular clauses.

For example, in English law, a liquidated damages clause will be subject to the clarification set out recently by the Supreme Court with a subsequent judgment, applying that test, indicating that a freely-negotiated LD clause is likely to be upheld subject to the requirements set out by the Supreme Court. Under UAE law, such a provision would be subject to Article 390(2) of the Civil Code and either party may apply to the court to adjust the agreed amount of compensation so it is equal to the loss. If Indian law were to apply, we would have to consider the effect of section 74 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872.

English law will also recognise an asymmetric jurisdiction clause.

And it may be that the choice of law clause will be reflected in the choice of jurisdiction. So, English law and the English courts. If the choice of courts is to reflect the choice of law, it may well be the consideration should be given to the efficacy of the court system and the technical expertise and other qualities of the judges.

Lots to consider.

Here are a couple that I just quickly came up with:

1. Can you recall the last time that you engaged with our team. Was it;
a) In the past 7 days
b) In the past 4 weeks
c) In the past 3-6 months
d) More than 12 months ago
c) Who is this?

2. When you engaged with our team, did you know the name of the person you were contacting?
a) No, I had to look someone up using either the contract, website, intranet, LinkedIn
b) Vaguely, I have spoken to a few different people in the course of business
c) Yes, I have regular communications with a consistent point of contact

Good evening Abdullah - I'll contribute an observation on the first one. Perhaps others who have been doing contract management and procurement for longer than me might have a different view, or say it more eloquently, but here goes....

Purchasing is a subset of procurement. It is the giving effect to a lot of the procurement work that you've done earlier (i.e. establishing what you want, identifying suppliers etc).

That said, I think that you can purchase without doing procurement, and in fact, I'd go so far as to say that you can even get the same outcome.

However, only by procurement can you demonstrate that you've got the right outcome. If you only purchase, and don't understand your needs, identify the market and consider the offerings against your needs, you can't demonstrate that you've got the best outcome for the business.

And this is where I think we as a group can demonstrate our worth to the business. We can show with procurement the outcomes that we've avoided (goods not matching requirements, getting better pricing outcomes, repetitional damage etc) by running a fair and robust process ensures that the business is better off.

On many occasions I've seen my team has moved someone from their initial fixed ideas into better outcomes by taking the time to show them what's possible and what good looks like. Do that enough times, and you have more and more allies in the business to encourage others to use your services.

Regards


Darren

Hi, Abdullah,

Check out this article in the IACCM Library, 'Procurement' and 'Purchasing' Are Different:
www.iaccm.com/resources/

Having looked at this topic, there is actually already a lot written on the question of the difference between purchasing and procurement. As they observe, for the typical person they are probably the same, but apparently 'the experts' in procurement know the difference! Though once you start reading, there is plenty of contradiction...

When it comes to Supply Management, it is yet another variant and clear as mud whether it is actually different from Procurement. Supply Chain Management is certainly a more holistic activity of which procurement is part, but that's about all you can really deduce.

The net is, these terms are used with a high degree of variability and tend to mean whatever anyone wants them to mean; the only common factor is that they are all associated with the act of buying!

Tim Cummins

Hi Abdullah

Years ago Procurement and Purchasing were often used interchangeability. These days they have very different meanings. Procurement refers to the end-to-end activities from strategic category management, through to the operational analytics of spend and performance, to the tactical buying and sourcing activities which can happen in-house or in shared services.

As the Procurement function has 'grown up'it has become far more strategic, so although the term Procurement refers to all the activities conducted by the function, it also implies more strategic perspectives. The scope is also overlapping with other related functions like Finance (Accounts Payable as part of the purchase to pay process) and supply chain (Supply Planning, product innovation and supplier performance management). The increasing focus on digital in Procurement is also seeing more collaboration with other functions for example, RPA (Robotic Process Automation) and machine learning, process automation and contract management, and predictive analytics.

Purchasing is clearly the administrative activity of raising a purchase order, managing the goods/service receipt notice and approving to pay. More advanced companies use on-line catalogues to support this along with automated workflow routing and defined delegations of authority. Put simply, Purchasing includes the tactical purchase and approval activities to support buying.

When we speak about supply chain today, we tend to talk about a value chain. Some organizations are now including supply chain and Procurement in one organization given the overlaps, but predominantly they continue to be separate, but related functions.

Supply chain will include demand planning and forecasting, distribution planning, warehousing and logistics, manufacturing (which may also be a separate function), supply planning and often new product development.

Where Procurement gets involved most is in supply planning and supplier performance management, for instance, using contracts to enforce performance, and collaborating with supply chain and marketing for product and service innovation by tracking supply markets and innovations.

Conceptually, the Procurement function has shifted from managing costs to providing value. Using advanced analytics of COGS and SG&A data, digital tools and advanced supplier market research, the function is working far more collaboratively with other functions. As business cadence increases, functions are becoming more linked and lines between which function does what is blurring.

Hope this helps.

David - you face a challenge experienced by many in the Aerospace/Defence sector, as well as the Engineering/Construction, Oil and Gas, Pharmaceutical and other sectors. All of those sectors have utilized the training content provided by IACCM, as it represents leading and innovative practices in this domain.

Hi David
I'd be interested to know more about how you define the role. I'm assuming - but perhaps wrongly - that the focus is post-award, but is it then dealing largely with contractvmanagement, or more broadly with performance management? To what extent is this a combined project and contract management responsibility?

Hi David,

An organisation like yours has what it takes to develop sub-contract programme managers internally due to the criticality of the service you provide. It was not clear if you tried to employ(source) the sub-contract managers or you tried outsourcing sub-contract management.

You would consider it great to employ these managers as staff for long-term rolling programmes rather contractor employees; except you need them for short-term tasks. You will need individuals with experience project, programme, commercial and contract excellence

You would prefer to contact each of the professional bodies you mentioned directly to make your enquiry. However, from my experience with CIPS and IACCM, both bodies are excellent in their area of specialisation. You won't go wrong partnering with them. APM and RICS would also have a specific focus that you would best explore reaching out to them.

Hi David,

My view is that the challenge in the UK rests with the way in which these professions are segregated rather than blended and then the fixation on qualifications rather than real world experience. Programme manager are marketable at one rate and contract managers at a lower rate so the temptation is from a career viewpoint is to market yourself at the higher rate profession. Hybrid roles tend to be thus rarer and need a premium to attract the right talent. Sadly recruitment companies in the UK focus on the volume for standard based roles and do not flex to the individual requirement. Often the best approach is use of LinkedIn or network sites for ready made talent. Otherwise growing your own and investing in your team is a great way to go but will take time and they will nurturing through the process. I hope that this helps.

I guess you need to establish key assumptions and/or minimal functionality or license metrics you need to achieve before you have anything you can benchmark against. Once that is established, you can ask for alternative software solutions which solves your need and then incentivize the best price found. Further you could measure the fulfillment of the key assumptions and have a payment attached to each of them. If the solution is going to introduce a certain workflow you could set pricing according to how fast it is implemented or how much money is saved/earned. If there is a license price and a T&M project, you could say have a differentiated discount scheme based on the number of hours spent. I.e the first X hours are paid at 140%, hours between X -Y are paid at 100% and hours after Y are paid by 50%.

I recommend you look at this article "Time and material vs Fixed price: hot discussion of the best pricing model" - www.cleveroad.com/blog/time-and-material-vs-fixed-price--hot-discussion-of-the-best-pricing-model

Firstly, I suggest to draft a SWs Portfolio document, which will list all the required SWs. SW portfolio will consist of details like SW name, description, area of application, criticality, user applicability, SL% requirements and other optional technical details like program language etc. Each of the listed SWs may be given a percentage split of charges between various applications, summing up to 100% (in this case DKK 0,5 M is 100%). This document can be kept open for addition/deletion for SWs.

Whenever Supplier adds/removes a SW this % split can be used for commercials/invoice purpose. For eg: a SW which falls between 10-25% will have 2% incentive, SW with 25-50% will have 5% incentive etc.

Secondly, SLA is completely depends on how you want specific SW to work for you. In the portfolio, for eg: if some SW is impacting critical users or functions you may set the SLA to required higher percentage and flow-down those SLAs to OEM as well. Also, I would suggest to a research on Pass-through charges, in which the supplier charges a fixed % incentive, but this is possible only if the SWs are fixed.