It was clear from the outset that the key personnel involved at the initial stages of this negotiated contract had moved on leaving ‘gaps’ where matters had been agreed but not noted down. No one knew the detail around who had priced what, what was in and what was out of the contract sum. Worse still the design was starting to show it wasn’t as well developed as the client had thought it to be.

Early in the programme it was clear that all of these factors were straining the relationship between all parties. The client was nervous about progress and spiralling costs whereas the contractor was concerned about liability and costs too. Whilst low in value this was actually a very technical and complex project. What’s worse is that the design team were nowhere to be seen! Some would argue this is not the best of environments to change the Project Manager but we do like a challenge so we rolled up our sleeves and dived in.

We joined the scheme with around 30 outstanding RFI’s at a stage where the demolition had only just begun. Sitting somewhere out on the horizon was a significant Extension Of Time (EOT) claim and, as a precursor of this, there was a great deal of sabre rattling both by the client and the contractor. The project was tracking, significantly, behind programme and whatever goodwill was there to start with had all but evaporated.

As we mention above this project was considered ‘small’ based on value for everyone but the client. The more we understood and the dust settled it was starting to look like a very complicated bit of work, and one that was deeply significant to the client. Whilst there was an option for both parties to terminate the contract it wouldn’t have been in anyone’s interest to do that either. No choice other than to plod on and keep going but with one marked difference, we were now Engineer to the Contract (EoT) and Project Manager (PM).

Our first objective was to understand the project, in detail. Then it was to get to know the style of each party and the way the parties interacted – whilst doing this we let things progress on site. The RFI’s kept coming in quicker than they were going out but we worked with the contractor to help prioritise the key elements of outstanding information so they could keep working on site. From the clients perspective we began to work with them to overcome their concerns about the progress on site, the contractors capability and the programme.

We dealt with the EOT claim diligently and professionally establishing that it wasn’t a valid claim after all. Whilst this deflated the contractor somewhat we adopted our fair, reasonable and professional approach providing balanced responses on all variations and claims including the EOT and what came along afterwards. This restored the confidence of both client and contractor, the application of NZS:3910. Sometimes the client was favoured by the contract and sometimes it was the contractor, most importantly though we adopted an impartial and clear position regarding the rules which helped immeasurably.

Over a period of 4-6 weeks we began to create an environment where the collective team felt comfortable to collaborate and where the key focus became, once again, the delivery of the building project. After all thats what we were all there for, something that is all too often forgotten.

We believe our extensive knowledge and experience helps us get the right outcome even when things get tricky.

Our professional, impartial and consistent application of the contract terms means that, even when things are found in the other parties favour, there is clarity about why that was. This gives our clients confidence, it also gives the team a professional footing from which a collaborative way of working develops leading to a far better end product, less stress and most importantly less cost.