In the October edition of Construction World Peter Bold, Executive Director of JBCC, purported to respond to my article published in the September edition in which I suggested that the construction industry would be better served by eliminating nominated/selected sub-contractors.
Bold perceived this as an attack on the JBCC 2000 contract, and has seen fit to raise o number of criticisms of my article but in truth has failed to offer any positive reply as to why nominated/selected sub-contractors should be retained.
If he had attended our seminars on JBCC 2000 he would have become aware that I was highly critical of the fact that JBCC 2000 had failed, dismally in my view, to recognise the direction which construction contract drafting was taking, internationally, but more particularly that JBCC 2000 appeared to be introducing a seriously legally flawed document. The JBC Committee appeared to take note of some of our criticisms since, subsequently, a number of further modifications to the document were made.
To suggest that there is “no requirement at all for this form of sub-contracting (nominated and selected) to be used in the JBCC” is naive in the extreme. The fad that it is there will continue to promote its use. The thrust of my article was that we do not need such a sub-contract entity at all and to the extent that JBCC 2000 continues, extensively, to promote this concept demonstrates my criticism that JBCC 2000 is mired in antiquated concepts.
He suggests that the JBCC alternative of nominated and selected sub-contractors provides a better option. Unfortunately he cannot support this allegation and fails to advance one single argument in support of this.
Finally, having reviewed Bold’s response I cannot find a shred of sustainable argument for the retention of nominated or selected sub-contractors. Instead his reply is couched in terms which are intended to suggest that my motivation for their elimination was other than a real belief that the industry as a whole could conduct its affairs from a far better perspective if this class of sub-contractor was eliminated.
ENGINEERING NEWS MAY 1999