As in previous editions, the articles in this issue of Management, Procurement and Law cover a wide range of topics across the spectrum of management, procurement and law. In addition, I am most grateful to have this opportunity of writing the editorial because, shortly after the publication of this edition, I will be stepping down as chairman of the editorial advisory panel and passing the baton across to Dr Sam Wamuziri. I have greatly enjoyed my time on the panel working with the other panel members; I know that I am leaving the journal in good hands and that it will continue to achieve something in the future.
The use of procurement as an instrument to promote improved occupational safety practices among suppliers has received little attention. In view of this, the first briefing, by Jill Wells and John Hawkins, promotes a proposal to include safe working practices in environmental and social action plans, as criteria in prequalification and in the evaluation of tenders for consultants and contractors, clearly priced and set out in detail in the contract documents (Wells and Hawkins, 2011). It is suggested that, if such a proposal were to be adopted, all parties to the contract would be required to work together to monitor compliance; it is hard to disagree with this proposition. Furthermore, performance can be assessed in evaluation reports and technical audits and rewarded through bonuses.
The second briefing, by Manu et al. (2011), appreciates that subcontracting has been noted to have an adverse influence on health and safety and that this state of affairs needs to be redressed. Consequently, the briefing offers some ideas for identifying measures for tackling the adverse impact of subcontracting, which include sustained education of the subcontracting chain concerning the causative factors and the mitigation provided by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM 2007; HMG, 2007). The authors also believe that, through research to assess the effectiveness of the implementation/enforcement of CDM 2007, the mitigation provided by CDM 2007 against the adverse influence of subcontracting would be enhanced and entrenched in the industry.
The first paper, by Roger Allport and Richard Anderson, draws on the authors’ wide-ranging experiences to describe ways of managing strategic risk in the field of mass transit railways (Allport and Anderson, 2011). The credit crunch exerts a powerful constraining influence in much of Europe and the United States within the metro sector. New-build projects too often do not deliver expectations and then, when operational, many are much less effective than forecast and required. These shortcomings undermine policy-makers’ confidence at a time when metros have a critical role to play in improving sustainable city development, while the credit crunch constrains what can be done. The paper analyses why this happens and what can be done about it. The solutions offered provide a rich depth and breadth of understanding of success factors from which all metros can learn. This experience of co-operative benchmarking provides an exemplar of international best practice. Its quantified benefits pay for its modest cost many times over. Increasingly, it is addressing financial and management as well as technical issues, assisting member operators to improve performance and, in so doing, better serving fellow citizens.
The second paper, by Andrew Agapiou, stems from questionnaire- and interview-based research with the principal aim of filling a gap in the literature and establishing baseline data on Scots construction lawyers’ awareness, attitudes and experiences of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and implications for the resolution of construction disputes (Agapiou, 2011). There is evidence from the questionnaire survey and participant interviews that more education in ADR procedures and their application could provide further opportunity to develop them as settlement tools in Scotland by building on more positive aspects of responses within the sample analysis.
This is followed by the third paper, by Aritua et al. (2011), which focuses on the widely accepted principle that the success or otherwise of the intelligent client in the delivery of major public infrastructure is closely linked to identifying the right individuals for the right positions. Recent research has shown current and future challenges in delivering major public infrastructure, given that the critical roles representing the intelligent client are under pressure. To face these challenges, the competencies needed to fulfil the intelligent client role need to be clarified. The paper advocates the need for competencies which are relevant to the specific project and ways in which these might be achieved.
In the fourth and final paper, Murray Chapman presents very important details of a 5-year battle against drainage authorities, which were opposed to the restoration of a flood embankment to protect a grade II* listed Elizabethan half-timbered building as well as farm buildings, an access road and agricultural land from the flood waters of the River Severn (Chapman, 2011). By the first ever appeal undertaken in accordance with section 110 of the Water Resources Act 1991 (1991) the drainage authorities were found to have acted not only unreasonably but also unlawfully. There was a failure by both the Environment Agency and Powysland Internal Drainage Board to take a balanced view in assessing the benefits as well as the detriments of the scheme. The inspector’s report was refreshing and a wake-up call to drainage authorities to be more mindful in the way they assess such works within the legal framework.
There then follows a discussion on Fidic’s Red Book 1999 edition. Peter Elliott responds to the recently published paper comparing the Fidic Red Book with the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) form of contract (Hillig et al., 2010) expressing reasons as to why he believes it would have been more appropriate to compare the Fidic ’99 suite of contracts with NEC3, rather than JCT, as NEC3 is designed for civil engineering works, as is Fidic ’99, and pointing out that there are other aspects of Fidic contracts which would also be worthy of discussion. In his reply, Jan-Bertram Hillig accepts the point that the JCT suite of contracts is not designed for civil engineering contracts, but argues that there is a lot that can be learnt from the differences between these two standard forms. Moreover, he suggests that there are no fundamental differences between contracts for building projects and civil engineering projects.
Finally, a series of six book reviews is included, covering a wide variety of topics ranging from risk management, project and infrastructure finance, procurement systems, EU procurement rules, labour conditions for construction and, to conclude, a book review on construction delays (extensions of time and prolongation claims). If you are thinking of purchasing a textbook on any of these topics, I am sure that you will find the book reviews helpful.
I am confident that this edition of the journal should contain something of interest for every reader with an interest in management, procurement or law. The editorial advisory panel very much welcomes your comments both constructive and otherwise. It is only through helpful feedback that the panel’s members can determine the readership interest in the various topics and, in that way, guide the direction of future issues of the journal. They look forward to hearing from you.
