What a difference a month makes. Four short weeks ago lockdown was in full swing and although some construction sites remained open many were effectively closed; those in Scotland were ordered to close by the Scottish Government.
Today the focus has shifted to rebooting the industry, which looks like being a far more difficult process than shutting it down was.
The key advice being given to companies a month ago still applies – make sure that all possible measures are taken to protect workforces. That means updating and reviewing risk assessments and ensuring that on site social distancing and hygiene requirements are supervised and complied with.
The impact of these measures on productivity is going to be serious, and likely to be the source of arguments over time extensions and payment for many months, if not years, to come. Last month’s advice from lawyers reported in this column about maintaining a robust paper trail, keeping full records of what measures were adopted, how and why and what professional advice was sought and acted on, remains apposite.
The scene is set though for some long and protracted battles over how much contractors are to be paid for the delay and disruption caused by new ways of working. It would be extremely optimistic for any contractor or client to imagine that there will be a return to the full efficiency on site that was routine before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Costs are going to increase at the same time and the upshot is likely to be a lot of loss making projects. Overhead costs are going to soar if additional temporary site accommodation for welfare facilities has to be provided to cater for social distancing.
Even getting workers to sites could be an issue; bigger sites often provide coaches to collect workers from pick up points, but they might have to either stagger work times or use more vehicles. All of which might need disinfecting between uses.
On site there might be a lot of down time as late deliveries of materials holds up operations. The various trades might have to have exclusive access to some areas for periods, and gang sizes limited. Legitimate disruption and delay costs should be secured by contract but careful records will have to be kept of all of this, itself another expense, as clients will not be paying out on claims without solid proof.
Clients and their representatives for their part will have to accept that most of these claims will be legitimate and screwing the contractor down unduly might well drive them out of business. Negotiating with a new contractor in the expectation that they will take on the same risk as the original one at anything like the original price will almost certainly be a harsh experience. The same advice could be given to main contractors in relation to their supply chains – some house developers are reportedly asking for reduced prices from their contractors, but subbie bashing would be counter productive in the medium to long term.
Much will depend on exactly what contracts say, and there will probably be surprises for those working overseas as different jurisdictions will have their own legal vagaries. Contract drafters will be busy soon with amendments for future contracts to reflect the lessons that will be learned now; let’s hope they aren’t learned the hard way.
Nick Barrett
Editor