Skip to main content
Facilitate Magazine: Informing Workplace and Facilities Management Professionals - return to the homepage Facilitate magazine logo
  • Search
  • Visit Facilitate Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit Facilitate Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @Facilitate_Mag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute of Workplace and Facilities Management Logo of the Institute of Workplace and Facilities Management

Main navigation

  • Home
  • News
    • Comment
    • People
    • Reports
    • Research
  • Features
    • Analysis
    • Features
    • Round Tables
    • Webinars
  • Outsourcing
    • Contracts
    • FM Business Models
    • Interviews
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Opinion
    • Procurement
    • Trends
  • Know-How
    • Explainers
    • Legal Updates
    • White Papers
  • Jobs
  • Topics
    • Workplace Services
      • Hospitality
      • Catering
      • Cleaning
      • Front of House
      • Grounds Maintenance
      • Helpdesk
      • Mailroom
      • Manned Guarding / Security
      • Pest Control
      • Washroom Services
      • Disaster Recovery
      • Specialist Services
    • Professional Performance
      • Behavioural Change
      • Continual Professional Development
      • Education
      • Management
      • Recruitment
      • Training
    • Workplace Performance
      • Benchmarking
      • Health & Wellbeing
      • Operational Readiness
      • Procurement
      • Security
      • Workplace User Experience
      • Workplace Culture
    • Compliance
      • Health & Safety
      • Risk & Business Continuity
      • Standards
      • Statutory Compliance
    • Building Services
      • Architecture & Construction
      • Asset Management
      • Building Controls
      • Building Fabric
      • Drinking Water
      • Fire Protection
      • HVAC
      • Landscaping
      • Mechanical & Electrical
      • Building Security
      • Water, Drainage & Plumbing
    • Technology
      • Building Information Modelling
      • CAFM
      • Data & Networks
      • Document Management
      • Information Management
      • Internet of Things (IoT)
      • Software & Systems
    • Energy management
      • Energy Management Systems
      • Electricity
      • Gas
      • Solar
      • Wind
    • Sustainability
      • Environmental Quality
      • Social Value
      • Waste Management
      • Recycling
    • Workspace Design
      • Agile Working
      • Fit-Out & Refurbishment
      • Inclusive Access
      • Lighting
      • Office Interiors
      • Signage
      • Space Planning
      • Storage
      • Vehicle Management / Parking
      • Washroom
    • Sectors
      • Corporate Office
      • Education
      • Healthcare
      • Manufacturing
      • International
      • Retail
      • Sports & Leisure
      • Regions
  • Buyers' Guide
Quick links:
  • Home
  • Topics
Know How
Content
Legal Updates
Compliance
Topics
Know How
Content
Legal Updates
Compliance

Get tough on risky business

Open-access content 7th December 2009

PFI subcontracts need to be more carefully negotiated to restore equilibrium between the FM contractor and other parties. Here are the golden rules for making it work.


by Matthew Dillon


10 December 2009

 

Most FM contractors understand that the risk profile of PFI contracting is significantly more onerous than with traditional procurement. But many are unaware of the true risks or how to mitigate them when negotiating contract terms with a special purpose vehicle (SPV).

 

Unfortunately key players in the industry do not help when they accept such excessive risk, often through ignorance, thus setting a benchmark against which others are judged.

 

Limitation of liability

 

Liability, including for deductions, should be capped at a sum equivalent to 100 per cent of the annual fee paid to the FM contractor. If the contract is terminated then the FM contractor's liability should be increased by no more than a further 100 per cent of the annual fee. Liabilities excluded from the cap should be restricted to insured losses, fraud, prohibited acts, abandonment, wilful default and certain indemnities in respect of physical injury or damage to property.

 

Deductions and defects

 

The FM contractor should not accept liability for unavailability caused by defects, particularly if the lifecycle fund is managed by the SPV. There must be a clear delineation between liability for maintenance and lifecycle replacement so that the FM contractor is not exposed to increased costs because the SPV is unwilling to dip into lifecycle reserves.

 

Any dispute as to whether the FM contractor is liable for deductions should be resolved with the SPV. The FM contractor should not bear the risks of recovery, insolvency or limitations by having to pursue the building contractor in respect of a defect.

 

Insurance

 

Business interruption insurance (BII) is often overlooked by the FM contractor. This indemnifies the holder for losses suffered in the event that the facility is unavailable due to the occurrence of a material risk.

 

Such policies are of potential benefit to the FM contractor, although they usually only cover the interests of the SPV and funder, with the insurer preserving rights of subrogation against the FM contractor.

 

Such policies only provide indemnification to the extent that the SPV is unable to recover its losses elsewhere, precluding indemnification where the FM contractor is liable for deductions. With a bit of imagination these problems can be overcome, despite heated exchanges with the SPV's advisors.

 

Interface agreements

 

These are often seen by building contractors as a conduit for passing liability to the FM contractor so their provisions require careful consideration.

 

The rules for interface agreements are:

¥ They should not increase the FM contractor's liability over and above that in the FM contract.

¥ They should not impose liability on the FM contractor for design or entitle the building contractor to claim damages for alleged delay.

 

The interface agreement should address the issue of building contractor access to the facility post-completion and the costs associated therewith. It should also address the reporting and rectification of defects both during and after the defects liability period.

 

The FM contractor should also be permitted to undertake minor remedial works and recover the cost of these from the building contractor after the event.

 

Utilities

 

Utility risk can be significant and the FM contractor must understand the risk placed on it in the event that energy consumption exceeds expectations. The FM contractor should not be liable for any increased energy usage outside of its control or for reason of the design simply not being able to achieve the promised efficiencies.

 

Completion

 

The FM contractor should request a duty of care from the independent certifier (particularly if the building contractor secures one). If the independent certifier wrongly certifies completion the FM contractor may be left with an incomplete facility and be exposed to increased costs of working and potential deductions. If the independent certifier owes the FM contractor a duty of care he will have to give equal weight to the interests of the FM contractor when certifying completion.

 

Project agreements

 

All-embracing 'sweep-up' clause in respect of project agreement risks should be resisted; the FM contract is a stand-alone document. General indemnities in respect of breach of contract, damages or losses should not be given.

 

Dispute resolution

 

The FM contractor should ensure it has extensive rights to participate in any dispute between the SPV and the public sector which has an impact on any dispute between the FM contractor and SPV. This may be achieved in a number of ways, such as name borrowing or a robust commitment from the SPV to progress FM contractor disputes with the public sector and not to compromise any dispute without FM contactor approval.

 

Matthew Dillon is a consultant at law firm Silver Shemmings LLP


 

Don't get dumped on

 

Within PFI contracts the FM contractor is often seen as an easy target- one that that SPV can dump risk on. There is rarely any commercial justification for this- the defence of bankability is little more than an excuse. FM contractors are well advised to take a harder line in negotiations, and that includes those entities engaged as subcontractors. The risk allocation as advocated herein is perfectly acceptable to the PFI sponsors although it will not be achieved without the FM contractor taking a robust stance.


 

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Most-Popular

 

Latest Jobs

Property Programme Manager - Fire Safety – Student Accommodation (MC)

London (Central)
£100k plus bonus + package
Reference
54310

Interim Head of Health & Safety

London (Central)
£300 per day (PAYE)
Reference
54307

Engineering Manager

Staffordshire
£60,000 + car +bens
Reference
54209
See all jobs »

 

 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to print

Sign up to receive our weekly Redactive News e-newsletter.

Subscribe
Facilitate magazine cover, June 2020
​
FOLLOW US
@Facilitate_Mag
Facilitate Magazine
Facilitate Magazine
CONTACT US
Contact us
Tel: 020 7880 6200
​

IWFM

About IWFM
Become a member
Qualifications
Events

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to Facilitate Magazine
Write for Facilitate Magazine

General

IWFM Jobs
Help

www.facilitatemagazine.com and Facilitate magazine are published by Redactive Media Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive, Level 5, 78 Chamber Street, London, E1 8BL