Kia ora Hanelie. I'm surprised that you haven't received a response yet. Many of the contract automation software tools in the IACCM/Cap Gemini register on our website have dashboards which report operational contract management i.e. status of contract changes, service level performance, financials, risks etc. So to your Oracle tool? For example, the GovernX tool from ISG is now integrating into 360 degree surveys to also include 'the voice of the supplier', which would also be part of a balanced scorecard. I will reach out to you directly to discuss. Our member meeting in Wellington NZ on 18 July will also discuss this topic. Bruce
Hi Brian. Liability, indemnity etc are common terms which reflect the inherent deal risk or at least the desire for risk allocation. However, the rubber hits the road when you look at the Statement of Work (SOW) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). The SOW is where the buyer/supplier either is fully informed about the requirements, roles/ accountabilities, and risks, hence, whether they have to factor in a contingency for risk (which is defined in ISO31000 at 'the effect of uncertainty on outcomes'). The more uncertainty then the more risk and the more contingency the supplier will typically build into the price. Then the SLAs typically attract 10-15% of contract value'service credits' for non-performance (the intent is to reflect the value of the margin). Depending upon how tough or unrealistic these are negotiated will also impact how much contingency the supplier will try to add in to the price. Trust this helps you Brian
National Australia Bank (NAB) Ltd
• National Australia Bank (NAB) Ltd
To clarify, NPS in this case is an initialism for Net Promotor Score. This Wikipedia article explains how it is used: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Promoter
Instead I would recommend to use customer satisfaction survey to measure satisfaction score of your employees with technology suppliers.
You may ask your technology suppliers to roll out customer satisfaction survey as part of vendor governance framework to measure business stakeholders satisfaction with respect to service performance / competency / value addition / innovation / flexibility / value for money
We generally maintain a "benefits tracker". This tracker is maintained on a real time basis for all the tangible benefits delivered by the contract management team. This could be complex negotiation, CCNs, renewals, commercial support etc. This gets validated by business leaders. At the end of the year, we say $xxx value delivered to business by the contract management team.
Usually split into few areas: risk management and compliance, performance of vendors and cost management and savings
Put a Variation of Price clause into the contract, based on output prices?
• Metro Trains Melbourne
Thanks Graham - had considered that but not sure how the other alliance will respond to that.At the moment l am leaning towards an EOT on the submission in conjunction with a early works side letter to allow construction to commence. Rgds Richard
There are many potential variables here and there must be enormous variation by industry.
For example, some consulting companies would likely be 80%+, whereas a manufacturing company might be as low as 20%.
If we were suggesting an average, It is perhaps around 58%, reflecting the % of b2b spend that is for Services.
I'm aware of the many variables which is why I was after a whitepaper or survey. My thoughts are that a survey or whitepaper would likely break these down by industry, contract type etc. I mean in reality, these same variables would apply to any survey regarding vendor mgmt or contract, would it not? Can you elaborate on the 58% or is that just a SWAG?
See below a few things on SLAs coming from our IACCM library:
www.iaccm.com/resources/ www.iaccm.com/resources/ www.iaccm.com/resources/ www.iaccm.com/resources/
Well, WILLFUL MISCONDUCT is clearly a breach of the agreement. Almost all of the contracts includes "The Contractor shall discharge its obligations in accordance with good industry practice" clause..
Willful misconduct clearly violates that, and i believe unless the Contract has such provision, the party cannot levy any kind of damages on the defaulting party.
Though the affected party by notice may ask for the substantial explanation of the defaulting party in this regard.
In case the affected party is the Authority, He may always holds the right to terminate the default party at any phase of the project.
Hope this helps.
• Bell Gully
Hi there, it depends on what legal jurisdiction you are operating in. In some jurisdictions "wilful misconduct" will have an established legal meaning. In others where it doesn't (including mine) it is actually sensible to flesh out the concept in your contract in order to (attempt to) mitigate any future uncertainty. These formulations will usually reference the party's intention, i.e., the party in question intended to commit the act or omission in question and knew/should have known that it was going to cause the other party to incur the loss. This is different from negligence (obviously) where you only have to show a duty of care. Whether your claim is for wilful misconduct or negligence, you will have still have to take the concept/test and "fit" it to the facts. Unfortunately it's never a binary kind of test.
As with any claim in tort you will then have to show causation i.e., (the wilful misconduct caused your loss) and that the loss wasn't too remote/excluded, e.g., if the other party excluded its liability for loss of revenue/profits and your loss = loss of revenue then you won't be able to claim damages. (Although it is actually pretty common for suppliers to agree that any liability caps/exclusions won't apply in the case of wilful misconduct).