Are you a Faithful or a Traitor?

The NEC test of mutual trust and co-operation.

Watching The Traitors, I could understand poor Ross Kemp getting a little paranoid. Everyone has a convincing explanation, everyone appears committed to the task, and working out who to trust becomes a job in itself.

Remove the castle, the cloaks and Claudia Winkleman, and some of those conversations could pass for a difficult project meeting. There may even be a little peacocking, as everyone demonstrates how thoroughly they understand the contract. Whether that helps resolve the issue is another matter!

The comparison has its limits, of course. Deception is part of the television programme. It should have no place in administering an NEC contract.

But it raises a useful question: what does being faithful to the contract actually involve?

Following the contract

Under the standard NEC4 ECC, clause 10.1 requires the Parties, Project Manager and Supervisor to act as stated in the contract. Clause 10.2 requires them to act in a spirit of mutual trust and co-operation.

Both apply. When we talk about the “spirit” of the contract, it is worth remembering that this obligation is written into it.

I place considerable importance on proper contract administration. Notices, records and timescales matter. They provide clarity and protect legitimate positions. A collaborative relationship does not remove the need for them.

Where I become less comfortable is when demonstrating that the process has been followed becomes the main measure of success.

The notice has been issued. The response has been sent. The position has been reserved. But what has happened to the problem?

I sometimes wonder whether we put as much effort into resolving an issue as explaining why it belongs to somebody else. Having worked for clients and contractors, I can appreciate the pressures on both sides. It is also easier to recognise defensive behaviour across the table than to question our own.

Status Update: "Ongoing"

Take an early warning. The risk is notified, discussed and entered into the register. Actions are agreed. A month later, the same risk is still there. The update says “Ongoing”.

I find that word particularly annoying when it constitutes the entire update. I've used it myself more times than I would like to admit. An action can legitimately remain ongoing. Some risks take time to manage, and the person raising the warning may have neither the authority nor the responsibility to resolve it.

But I want to know what has progressed, what is holding things up and what happens next. Who needs to act, and by when?

Without that information and the necessary follow-through, we can find ourselves watching the programme being murdered in plain sight, while faithfully updating the register.

The same concern applies when relevant information is withheld, an uncomfortable decision is repeatedly deferred or evidence is dismissed because it does not support the preferred answer. I am more interested in how our knowledge of the contract helps move the issue forward than how confidently it is presented.

The Final Vote

Being Faithful under NEC means acting as the contract requires, including in a spirit of mutual trust and co-operation.

That can involve challenging a quotation, issuing a notice or disagreeing with an assessment. Nobody should have to surrender a legitimate entitlement to prove they are a team player.

A notice may protect a contractual position. It is not a shield against taking the action the contract requires or following through on what has been agreed.

For me, the test is whether we explain our position, consider the evidence and fulfil our responsibilities. An unresolved issue does not, by itself, make anyone a Traitor. Equally, a complete correspondence file does not tell us whether the issue has been managed well.

I would rather leave a difficult meeting with a clear disagreement and an agreed action than a comfortable one knowing we will repeat it next month.

Less peacocking. More follow-through. And preferably more of an update than “Ongoing”!

John Moss | Mossbridge Consulting — View from the Bridge