Sometimes the client has signed an agreement with the designated subcontractor, which is transferred to the main contractor. Or the client may simply require the contractor to use a particular subcontractor to perform certain work. The appointment mechanism is an instruction on a principal cost amount to which the principal contractor is entitled to add up the mark and attendance fees. This allows the customer to conduct separate direct negotiations with suppliers and introduce the date into the contract after the main contractor starts work. Despite the economic benefits of the current appointment, suppliers are more likely to prioritize the customer in the event of high demand. They are also more likely to help the client when a problem arises with a planning aspect and the client needs solutions that would allow them to obtain the planning permission necessary for a development to continue. The complexity of this situation means that some forms of contracts no longer contain provisions for appointment, but rather wish to “designate” suppliers. With respect to the pricing of the work, the method chosen is usually done by means of a principal cost that allows the contractor to add an increase in participation, i.e. to manage the subcontractor designated by the completion of its work. Similarly, there are situations in which a client or developer may have a “backstop” date by which the project must be completed, and that it recognizes that the necessary materials or equipment have a longer advance time that is provided. When they work on their current program, they will not get a contractor in time who could place an order for long lead positions, so the customer must intervene at an early stage and place the order himself. If you get the contractor, you ask them to take over that supplier. In the construction industry, the term “supplier” is a very general term, which refers to organizations mandated in the delivery of a built asset.
There is appropriate English jurisprudence concerning designated subcontractors and the prime contractor`s responsibility for late payments. However, it should be treated with caution. Much of the case law boils down to a somewhat pedantic analysis of the importance of words used in old standard construction contracts. It therefore has limited support for someone who tries to interpret the meaning of a main contract, if those words do not exist. Most standard contracts expressly provide that the principal contractor is strictly responsible for its subcontractors, including all designated subcontractors. For example, all FIDIC forms in point 4.4 provide that the contractor is responsible for the actions or failings of the subcontractors, as if they were acts or breaches on the part of the contractor. This has two consequences: as a client, the benefits of the program and design are obvious, but there are considerable drawbacks that may arise, which could lead to complex legal consequences.