The PPC2000 Project Partnering Contract was launched in 2000. Like the TPC2005 Term Partnering Contract, it is used for public and private projects ranging from social housing to airport facilities.
These forms of contract are multi-party partnering contracts. As such, they are entered into by all the parties to the project. The client, contractor (known under the forms as the “Constructor”), consultants and specialists (sub-contractors) all sign the same, single contract. The result of this is that each party owes contractual obligations to every other party to the agreement.
Because of this multi-party approach, the parties are at greater risk than under more traditional forms of procurement, where there are a number of separate contracts between the relevant parties.
For example, if the contractor causes a delay to completion, it potentially faces multiple claims in respect of that delay. Clearly it is liable to the client for the effect of that delay. But unlike more traditional forms of procurement, it will also face a liability to each and every other party to the agreement which has suffered a loss as a result of that delay.
By contrast, in the more traditional forms of procurement the contractor would only normally have a liability to those with whom it had directly contracted.
PPC2000 and TPC2005 were re-launched with revisions in October 2008. The forms retain their existing structure content. There have been limited substantive changes. The increased risk profile referred to above has not been addressed. As a result the standard forms will still need amending, where possible, to address the increased risk inherent in their multi-party approach.
The following are the key changes that have been introduced to the PPC2000 and TPC2005 forms:
- 2. Project Bank Accounts
To assist cash flow to subcontractors and suppliers, there is now an option for payments to be made directly into a designated project bank account.
- 3. Partnering timetable and Risk Register
PPC2000 now includes model forms of partnering, timetable and risk registers. This brings it into line with TPC2005.
- 4. Feedback
The period for objecting to instructions from the Client Representative has been increased from two to five working days. Similarly, the period for the Client Representative to respond to the Constructor’s proposals for mitigating delay and disruption have been increased from two to five working days.
- 5. Clarifications
There were some discrepancies between TPC2005 and PPC2000. But the forms have now been brought into line with each other as far as possible without having to completely redraft them.
For further information or advice on multi-party agreements, please contact
Stuart Thwaites.
