ºÃÉ«ÏÈÉúTV

NEC3 has been in the press a lot recently. People either love it or loath it. Me? I love it because it means better communication amongst key parties and it’s changing the nature of the QS role.

Under NEC3 our new role is to recognise risk, identify early warnings and find solutions as soon as possible by bringing the relevant parties together. To do this, we really need to understand the client’s goals, then get all the parties on board to work towards the same objectives. So an ability to provide procurement, contract formulation and contract administration advice must be at the core of the QS’s skill set.

Most articles published so far on NEC3 have focused on the contract detail and drafting issues, asking ‘has NEC3 gone far enough?’ But they are missing the point. I am not saying contracts should just be thrown together, but rather NEC3 should be taken in its intended spirit, which encourages best practice management throughout the project lifecycle.

It’s better than an excess of guidance notes and texts, or the traditional ‘death by power point’ presentation

The whole purpose of this new style of contract is that it is simple, with enough detail and options to make clear the intentions and obligations of the parties, but it still leaves enough scope for them to get on and complete the project – supported, rather than restricted, by the terms of the contract. The mechanisms within NEC3, such as early warning and risk registers, are there to act as a stimulus to early problem solving and to encourage the parties to work together to find solutions rather than getting bogged down in the adversarial resolution of contractual details.

NEC3 forces parties to talk instead of festering over disputes and facing a lengthy dispute resolution process at the end of the contract. The contract’s programmes and pricing schedules promote efficiency and problem solving. It’s about all those things Egan and Latham said we should do: best practice, best value, client satisfaction, health and safety and so on.

Too simplistic?

NEC3 forces parties to talk instead of festering over disputes and facing a lengthy dispute resolution process at the end of the contract

Some feel the NEC3 fails to cover the myriad contractual possibilities that might evolve in a typical construction contract. They say NEC 3 is too simplistic. But it’s better than an excess of guidance notes and texts, or the traditional ‘death by power point’ presentation. At our firm we begin to question before the contract starts, cover risks before they happen and grasp what is to be achieved on the project. In this way we are enabling our QSs to develop a new personality all too often they have been viewed by the client as delaying the job and creating barriers, as they scratch around in the minutia of the project.

In addition, the QS is increasingly becoming the project manager’s right hand (wo)man. In his book The NEC 3 Engineering and Construction Contract – A Commentary, Brian Eggleston identifies 91 functions of the project manager. So for QSs to be an effective support to the PM, we are equipping them not only with knowledge of NEC3 framework principles, but also with higher levels of competence and confidence. Because the PM has such significant roles and responsibilities he or she needs to be able to rely upon the QS to avoid any charges of professional negligence.

I’m passionate about the opportunities NEC3 presents for the industry and for the QS. In addition to the simplicity of language, ease of drafting and numerous options, the procurement choices are endless – fixed price, reimbursable, service, framework and so on. NEC3 provokes the QS to think, debate, discuss, and really consider and contribute to client objectives.