A budget of more than £900m, including funding for infrastructure, regeneration and job training schemes that can support the region’s post-Covid-19 economic recovery has been approved by the West Midlands Combined Authority.

The 2021/22 WMCA Budget includes a package of major transport projects to help drive economic growth and cleaner air as well as funding to unlock and transform the region’s derelict industrial sites for new homes and jobs.

An Adult Education Budget (AEB) of £142m, the biggest of any UK region outside London, will be used to give people, especially those impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, the skills needed to get back into work and to secure jobs in growing sectors such as construction, digital and the emerging green industries.

But in approving the budget, the WMCA board warned of the financial uncertainty caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic with recent independent research also suggesting the West Midlands could be hit harder than any other UK regional economy.

Andy Street, the Mayor of the West Midlands, said: “The investments outlined in this budget will help the West Midlands make significant strides towards a quick and effective recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, as well as tackling the climate emergency facing our region.

“We’re investing hundreds of millions of pounds in our green public transport network, with zero carbon and Sprint buses, new rail stations, cycling infrastructure, and of course Metro extensions – with almost £100m alone being spent over the next year on the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill extension.

“Meanwhile more than £116m is being spent on the remediation of derelict brownfield land, saving acres of greenbelt from development, and we’re investing £142m to level up our skills, getting us ready for the huge boost in the green jobs of the future as we look to help get people into work.

“What these investments will do is help to create and protect jobs at what is such a critical time for many people’s livelihoods, whilst also helping us on our way to becoming carbon neutral by 2041.

“We are managing to deliver all of this without costing the taxpayer any more money, as this will be the fourth year in a row where we have not introduced a mayoral precept, meaning not an extra penny from us will be added to people’s council tax bills.”

The approved budget includes £363m for the WMCA’s transport arm – Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) – to deliver schemes that will improve connectivity, drive economic growth and help cut carbon emissions by making it easier and more attractive for people to switch to public transport.
 
Projects include:

  • The expansion of the electric-powered Metro tram system
    ·The opening of new railway lines and stations at Darlaston, Willenhall, Moseley, Kings Heath and Hazelwell
    ·The development of a ‘Sprint’ rapid bus network using zero emission vehicles
    ·Support for the continuing conversion of buses from diesel to hybrid
    ·More cycling and walking routes
    ·Concessionary travel for older people, the blind, disabled and children

In addition, there will be £11m available for subsidised bus services, £7m for Ring and Ride and nearly £4m to enhance transport for the Commonwealth Games.

More than £116m is committed for housing and land projects and in particular the WMCA’s ‘brownfield first’ policy to unlock and redevelop derelict urban land and help safeguard the Green Belt.

Investments will accelerate the on-going transformation of former industrial sites to deliver energy efficient, affordable new homes and modern commercial premises for businesses to grow and create jobs. There will also be support for the regeneration of town centres and for the research and development of modern methods of construction and zero carbon homes.

Key brownfield housing schemes include:

  • Up to 750 new homes on a former sewage works at Friar Park in Sandwell
    ·252 homes on the former Caparo steel works at Walsall
    ·The construction of a further 138 homes using cutting edge construction technology on derelict land at Icknield Port Loop in Edgbaston

Around £120m in capital grants will be allocated to local authorities to help fund major infrastructure projects with significant investment in Coventry (Station Masterplan, City Centre South, Very Light Rail, City of Culture), Solihull (UK Central Programme) and Birmingham including £20m for the Commonwealth Games.

The £142m of skills funding will be used by the WMCA’s productivity and skills team, working with local authorities, to fund training courses that give people the opportunity to upskill and get back into work, with more training matched to those industries suffering skills shortages, including higher level skills.

The WMCA Budget report also highlights how, ahead of Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s Budget announcement on March 3, the authority is continuing to seek the additional funding set out in its Spending Review Submission while lobbying for additional capacity and ongoing funding to tackle the impact of Covid-19.

 

Source: The Business Desk

 

Invest in technology, productivity and sustainability, says Fergus Harradence, Deputy Director of Construction at the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He will be addressing the CIOB’s Adapt & Thrive conference on 24 March.

The UK construction sector has done a great job amidst the pandemic, adopting new site procedures allowing the whole supply chain to continue operating to make a significant contribution to the national pandemic response. It has achieved this whilst largely avoiding significant outbreaks of Covid-19 on construction sites.

The challenge now is to maintain these high safety standards, especially with the emergence of new and more contagious variants.

The headwinds can’t be ignored. On top of Covid-19, there has also been some disruption to the supply of imported products, caused by problems in the global shipping industry due to a reduced number of vessels, and the new customs procedures introduced at the end of the Brexit Transitional Period.

Some parts of the industry have seen a reduction in work, especially in the hospitality and leisure sectors. Hopefully a combination of the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines and firms becoming more familiar with the new procedures will see these problems resolved.

Our view of the future

In the medium to longer term, the industry faces the need to adopt new technologies, techniques and working practices based on digital and offsite manufacturing to improve its productivity, the sustainability of its operations and the quality of its outputs.

This will require significant investments in capital equipment, training and capacity building in the workforce.

The industry also needs to prepare for longer term structural shifts in demand; for example building fewer offices or leisure facilities, but finding more work retrofitting homes and buildings to make them more energy efficient.

Finally, the industry needs to prepare for government and other clients demanding infrastructure and buildings that embody and emit much lower levels of carbon, higher standards in terms of building safety and information about buildings, and that it maximises its contribution to delivering wider social and economic value in the UK.

How should companies prepare?

The Construction Playbook, published in December, sets an ambitious vision for how government plans to reset its relationship with the construction industry.

Central government clients will provide greater transparency around project pipelines and build deeper relationships with the supply chain based on longer term contracts and more collaborative contractual structures.

In return we’ll seek better flow of information across the supply chain, the use of should-cost modelling (SCM) and benchmarking to underpin a more honest dialogue about project costs, and to ensure the industry can make a fair margin of profit.

The aim is also to deliver fairer contractual terms throughout the supply chain, better payment practices, and to improve the management of risk, as well as avoiding the escalation of issues into disputes, or to resolve these quickly.

It also sets out how government will challenge the industry to deliver better social value, and use new technologies to deliver this and improve its performance. The themes of the Playbook are relevant to the whole industry, and give examples of what firms should be doing to prepare for the future.

What’s holding industry back?

The main obstacles to the industry making progress are its structure, and also its adversarial culture.

The future is a more collaborative one, with closer relationships between clients and firms throughout the construction supply chain, greater transparency and information sharing, and an industry where the majority of infrastructure and new buildings are manufactured, and will form part of a digitised built environment.

The industry needs to be better at understanding the contribution it can make to society, and how it can maximise this, invest in improving its capability to innovate and deploy new technologies and techniques, increase its diversity, improve levels of skills and competency, and deliver better occupational and mental health provision for everyone working in the industry.

A path to the future

The Transforming Construction Challenge, a £420m innovation partnership between the industry and government, which is part of the Construction Sector Deal, is supporting the development of a wide range of innovations, and associated approaches and techniques.

It has supported the use of AI to improve project planning and delivery, digital platforms that support SMEs to use modern methods of construction, and new manufacturing techniques to produce homes and other buildings, including pioneering the use of product platforms (common sets of components) for built assets, an approach that has been very successful in the automotive sector.

In parallel, the Construction Innovation Hub has developed an approach to defining what constitutes value, to broaden the focus of procurement away from capital cost, and is also working on how to embed quality management approaches in the delivery of construction projects.

Many firms of all sizes are improving their performance. Covid-19 has required many to rethink their business processes and onsite operations, and to adapt these in ways that improve productivity to close the output gap created by the need to adopt safer working procedures.

In parallel, we are seeing firms large and small adopting new technologies and investing in the capabilities of their workforce, or recruiting people from other sectors, whether IT or manufacturing, to bring new ideas and skills into the business.

These trends are good, but they need to embed and accelerate if we’re to realise the full value of the industry and its output.

 

Source: Global Construction Review (CIOB)

 

TOKYO: With Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga pledging to bring Japan’s carbon dioxide emissions to net zero by 2050, a growing number of Japanese companies are looking at how they can make a bigger contribution to curbing global warming.

As investors scrutinize how firms address environmental issues, sustainability and governance, Japanese trading houses are reviewing business strategies by reducing their traditionally heavy reliance on natural resources as a major source of profits.

Itochu Corp. is selling its 20 percent stake in a coal mine in Colombia to Drummond Company Inc., a U.S. coal producer that owns the remaining 80 percent, as part of efforts to promote decarbonization.

To highlight its commitment to tackling environmental issues, Itochu is now preparing to issue SDG bonds targeting overseas investors, the first by a Japanese trading house, by around April, a company official said.

Although details have yet to be worked out, the funds to be raised will likely be used to promote renewable energy among other green initiatives, the official said.

Such bonds are meant to help attain the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, which are intended to address a host of issues from climate change to poverty.

Itochu is not alone in putting more focus on reducing CO2 emissions. Mitsubishi Corp., another Japanese trading house, has invested in Canada’s CarbonCure Technologies Inc. to promote low-carbon concrete in the construction industry in Japan and other parts of Asia.

CarbonCure Technologies has a technology to inject recycled CO2 into fresh concrete, which will then undergo a mineralization process and become stronger.

The production of cement, a key ingredient in concrete, is one of the major contributors to CO2 emissions.

According to a recent survey by Teikoku Databank Ltd., the percentage of companies that regard efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions as part of their social corporate responsibility or as necessary to build “good relations” with stakeholders was higher among big companies than smaller ones.

Still, 43.4 percent of respondents said it would be “difficult” for Japan to attain carbon neutrality by 2050 and 17.9 percent see it as “impossible.”

Some 15.8 percent said the goal is achievable, according to the survey to which 11,479 companies responded.

The Japan Business Federation, the nation’s powerful business lobby known as Keidanren, regards achieving carbon neutrality as a formidable challenge and is stressing the need to tackle it by promoting the use of hydrogen, electric cars and new innovations.

Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. has begun studying the possibility of transporting and distributing hydrogen produced and liquefied by using renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power in Australia.

As part of such efforts, Kawasaki Heavy is working with Fortescue Metals Group in Australia and Iwatani Corp., a Japanese liquefied hydrogen supplier, to examine the business feasibility of the plan, with an eye to making a decision by 2025.

In recent years, Japan has been seeking to promote the use of hydrogen as an alternative energy source but building infrastructure remains a challenge.

“We will have to see how much demand will increase for hydrogen in the coming years,” a Kawasaki Heavy official said.

For consumers, recycling PET bottles can be one way to do their part in protecting the environment.

Aeon Co. is planning to experiment with turning PET bottles collected at its supermarkets into new ones and using them for its “Topvalu” private brand.

The Japanese retailer has set a goal of using 100 percent recycled or plant-based PET bottles by 2030.

According to Aeon, some 11,982 tons of PET bottles were collected at its stores in fiscal 2019. If these were recycled and remade into new bottles, it would mean that Aeon could roughly cover all bottles manufactured annually under the private brand, a company official said.

The trial will first cover Tokyo and its neighboring prefectures.

“The momentum is building for decarbonization and we believe this is an opportunity,” the official said.

 

Source: The Mainichi

 

Government incentives designed to encourage energy efficiency, coupled with technological advancements, have applied pressure on the construction industry to build increasingly airtight buildings of late. However, high levels of airtightness and poor ventilation are building up major health problems in new housing, according to a study by Glasgow School of Art’s Mackintosh Environmental Architecture Research Unit (Mearu). Building Specifier’s Joe Bradbury investigates:

Researchers at Mearu have uncovered serious indoor air quality (IAQ) problems in a wide range of new homes that had been built to be airtight and, as a result, were increasing instances of asthma and other respiratory problems in occupants.

Mearu studied 200 modern homes and found widespread evidence of poor ventilation, with bedrooms being a particular problem. The unit has produced a public awareness film urging people to ventilate their homes properly by “keeping vents or windows open when cooking, showering and cleaning; drying laundry near an open window; and opening windows at night.”

Head of Mearu Professor Tim Sharpe said “Poor indoor air quality is hard for people to detect. There are clear links between poor ventilation and ill health, so people need to be aware of the build-up of CO2 and other pollutants in their homes, and their potential impact on health.

“Modern homes are increasingly airtight and can also contain a great number of pollutants and chemicals, many of which can have serious health effects.”

Airtightness in a post-COVID world

Covid-19 has shone a spotlight on the devastating consequences of having respiratory issues. Seeing people gasp for air in hospital beds on respirators is hardly an image we are likely to forget in a hurry. However, it isn’t just coronavirus that attacks the lungs. Poor indoor air quality is linked to cancer, lung disease, COPD and asthma amongst other potentially fatal conditions.

On average, 3 people a day die from asthma alone. There are 5.4 million people (1.1 million children and 4.3 million adults) in Great Britain known to be suffering from the condition… and they are just the ones that came forward for treatment. An untold number battle through their symptoms undiagnosed. The UK has some of the highest asthma rates in Europe. Every day, the lives of three families are devastated by the death of a loved one to an asthma attack, and tragically two thirds of these deaths are preventable.

Indoor air quality is essential in the treatment and prevention of Asthma, along with many other respiratory conditions.

If you are building a new domestic property or commercial property of a certain size, it will need to undergo air tightness testing. This assesses the building for ‘air permeability’, checking for air leakage through gaps, holes and other areas. The Government has SAP (Standard Assessment Procedures) in place for air tightness testing, setting standards buildings must comply with to be energy efficient.

Airtightness in buildings has improved to such a degree in recent years and ventilation has had to play catch up. Adequate ventilation in airtight buildings is essential and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) systems offer that effective, efficient and clean way of ventilation so sorely needed by people living in poor quality air across Britain today.

Ventilation is the answer

MVHR (Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery) provides fresh filtered air into a building whilst retaining most of the energy that has already been used in heating the building. Heat Recovery Ventilation is the solution to the ventilation needs of energy efficient buildings. Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR), heat recovery ventilation (HRV) or Comfort ventilation are all names for the same thing. A heat recovery ventilation system properly fitted into a house provides a constant supply of fresh filtered air, maintaining the air quality whilst being practically imperceptible.

MVHR works by extracting the air from the polluted sources e.g. kitchen, bathroom, toilets and utility rooms and supplying air to the ‘living’ rooms e.g. bedrooms, living rooms, studies etc. The extracted air is taken through a central heat exchanger and the heat recovered into the supply air. This works both ways, if the air inside the building is colder than the outside air then the building will retain its nice and cool temperature.

In a recent article featured on renewables experts Mitsubishi’s news site ‘The Hub’, Paul McLaughlin, chief executive of the Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) said “a well-sealed building envelope combined with effective filtration of incoming supply air can reduce particle penetration by 78%. Considerable investment has already been made in improving the airtightness of buildings to reduce energy consumption and that same process can be used to manage air quality.”

“The general public already understands the impact temperature has on healthy and productive conditions inside buildings — we now need to stress that the same principle should apply to air quality.

“When it is too hot or cold outside, people now expect to be able to enjoy comfortable temperatures inside. They should also expect similar protection from rising air pollution.”

As an industry, we are responsible for the comfort and wellbeing of the occupants of the buildings we make and maintain. It’s also our duty to ensure we are taking adequate steps towards renewables. Especially these days! MVHR can tick both of these boxes, so it’s time to sit up and take note.

Bringing the fresh air indoors

When we are inside the home, an indoor workplace (or any other type of building, for that matter), we are placing ourselves unwittingly at the mercy of the air within that building. Any chemicals, toxins or pollutants are drawn into our bodies and can cause headaches, eye irritation, skin problems, allergies and fatigue. Prolonged exposure to more serious pollutants can even cause certain types of cancers and other long-term health complications. As specifiers building structures designed for people, we have to consider this in our projects and ensure we do everything within our power to protect occupants from the invisible menace of unclean air.

MVHR (Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery) provides fresh filtered air into a building whilst retaining most of the energy that has already been used in heating the building. Innovations within the field of airtightness in buildings have happened so rapidly in recent years and ventilation and heat recovery have had to play catch up to keep up with the momentum. Adequate ventilation in airtight buildings is essential and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) systems offer that effective, efficient and clean way of ventilation so sorely needed by people living in poor quality air across Britain today.

In summary

The general public understands the impact temperature has on healthy and productive conditions inside buildings sadly all too well; fuel poverty and winter deaths take centre stage in our newspapers and magazines. Unfortunately, the fact that air quality is equally as impactful on society is regularly overlooked, especially in 2021 when the news is dominated with COVID, Brexit and not much else…

Regardless of how hot or cold it may be outside, people have come to expect comfortable indoor temperatures. They demand that from their buildings. They now need to invoke the same demand for protection from harmful air pollution. Get either wrong and you run the risk of harming your occupants.

Warmth and clean air to breathe is essential. As an industry, we are responsible for the comfort and wellbeing of the occupants of the built environment. We must also ensure we are moving forward towards renewables, otherwise I would argue that we aren’t moving forward at all. MVHR just might be the answer.

A recent survey of British Coatings Federation (BCF) members demonstrates how Brexit has impacted negatively on the coatings sector in the form of new customs red-tape and higher costs since 1st January.  The survey reported higher shipping costs, increased costs of imported raw materials, and new administration costs to complete customs paperwork, with 30% of companies estimating increases in total operating costs of 3-10%.

 

As a result, significant risks to the competitiveness of BCF members’ UK production and exports, despite the industry investing in preparing for Brexit (86%) and being experienced exporters beyond the EU (75% of companies).

 

The new Free Trade Agreement (FTA) will have a significant negative impact on the UK exports of paints, coatings and printing inks.

 

Key findings:

 

  • Two thirds of companies fear losing EU export customers due to the additional cost and complexity of doing business
  • Seven out of ten say their opportunities to trade with the EU will decrease
  • Only 10% see opportunities from new trade deals with the rest of the world

 

On a more positive note, a quarter of companies thought the FTA might mean more chances to increase trade within the UK.

 

BCF members also fear the new trading relationship will have a significant impact on the UK manufacturing of paints, coatings and printing inks. 82% of respondents have UK manufacturing, 35% were UK SMEs and 60% foreign owned business.

 

Key findings:

 

  • 50% believe the new FTA will reduce the competitiveness of their UK factories compared to EU competitors.
  • 25% were concerned there was a risk their company would reduce UK production and move it to the EU
  • Three quarters of those same companies (18.5% of total respondents) believed there was a risk their company could stop operations in the UK altogether
  • Seven out of ten believe the UK diverging from EU REACH in future will reduce their competitiveness
  • Almost 60% are worried about future effects of UK REACH on raw material prices and potential lack of availability of chemical substances

 

Commenting on the survey results, Tom Bowtell, CEO of the British Coatings Federation, said:

 

“BCF members have been encountering serious practical issues since 1st January. The survey results demonstrate the extent of the difficulties our members are having to deal with at the moment and also helps quantify the likely future impact of these changes on the industry.

 

“While some of the reported delays and disruptions at the borders will hopefully prove to be teething problems, it is clear that added complexity of customs procedures and associated costs are here to stay. There is also a worry that medium term issues – likely to be posed by the new UK chemicals regulations regimes, like UK REACH – will only exacerbate the situation.

 

“We therefore need the UK Government to act in two ways. Firstly, it needs to do more to support all businesses coming to terms with the new customs and borders procedures. More resources are needed to iron out problems with IT systems and other processes, as well as to communicate what is needed to both UK and EU companies, through training and marketing campaigns. Secondly, it needs to amend the UK REACH legislation to further mitigate against some of the extra costs and impacts on raw material availability that will inevitably arise based on its current plans. Failure to do so will lead to our members – and other businesses in similar sectors – reaching the higher end of their additional cost estimates and, ultimately, see many reducing or relocating manufacturing in the UK as we become a less competitive country to do business in.”

 

The Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE) has launched a series of briefings exploring how Project Speed can improve delivery of hospitals, schools, homes and rail.
The output from four industry roundtables hosted by ACE in partnership with construction firms Laing O’Rourke, Mace and Reds10, as well as Network Rail and housebuilder Thakeham, the briefings explore how the industry can meet aspirations to deliver “faster, better and greener”.
Taking inspiration from the rapid delivery of NHS Nightingale hospitals, the briefings explore practical steps that need to be taken to unlock delivery. Case studies shared from across the UK demonstrate the tangible measures that can already be taken to make Project Speed a reality.
Common themes that emerge from the four briefings on rail, homes, hospitals and schools include:
• Strengthening the evidence base and use of data in project development and decision making.
• The digitising of previously paper-based process such as planning consultations, assurance and approvals processes.
• Focusing projects on an new approach to value-based decision making which goes beyond the purely financial.
• A recognition that making time for good design can significantly improve health, education, housing and transport outcomes.
Hannah Vickers, chief executive of ACE said: “I have no doubt that we have the vision, creativity, and problem solving skills to meet the Project Speed challenge head-on, which is why we brought the industry together for our roundtables.”
“The briefings will form the basis of our engagement with Westminster over the coming weeks and months as we reinforce the message that our members, and the industry more widely, are key partners for Government if Project Speed is to become a reality.”
The industry roundtable discussions covered a range of issues that are seen as vital to speeding up delivery in each sector:
• Hospitals – Why its important to look at programmes rather than distinct projects, project sequencing and early detailed design, and digital design models.
• Schools – More collaborative and value driven design and procurement, how a product mindset is needed to deliver with Modern Methods of Construction and making use of live ‘performance’ data.
• Homes – The importance of the planning regime to this debate, how to create a sustainable vision, digitising the process to speed-up delivery, and the use of design codes and guides.
• Rail – How to best focus design on the start of projects, the role of the design integrator and a ‘one team’ approach and how digital approaches lead to more efficient assurance.
The four Project Speed briefings are available for everyone to download now at:
www.acenet.co.uk/project-speed

What standard contract forms are used for construction and design? Must the language of the contract be the local language? Are there restrictions on choice of law and the venue for dispute resolution?

Standard forms

A number of standard form contracts have been created in an attempt to provide standardisation and as a means of addressing the risks and issues that may arise on a construction project. For the most part these will cover the same key issues, including obligations to carry out and make payment for the works; provisions relating to design development; the obtaining of approvals and consent; time for completion, delays and extensions of time; variations; insurance; price adjustments for changes in law, inflation, etc; commissioning, completion and handover; and the rectification of defects after completion.

Domestically, one of the more commonly used standard form contracts is the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) suite of contracts. The JCT suite includes the design-and-build contract, standard form (traditional procurement), intermediate form and minor works contract together with suites for construction management and management contracting options. These standard forms are also often amended to reflect project-specific requirements and the agreed risk profiles of the parties. In addition, the NEC3 and now NEC4 suite of contracts are continuing to grow in popularity, particularly in the public sector.

Factors such as the nature, value and complexity of the project, the procurement model and the client’s drivers and desired outcomes will inform the choice of contract on a project.

There are a range of standard form professional appointments used by consultants: the Royal Institute of British Architects Agreements 2010, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Forms of Appointments, the NEC Professional Services Contract and the Association of Consulting Engineers Agreements. However, clients often prefer to use bespoke appointments to capture project-specific requirements and to ensure a degree of consistency across the project team.

Language

There is no legal requirement for English to be the language of the contract, but generally English is used.

Choice of law

The parties to a contract are free to select the governing law and venue for dispute resolution. If a contract does not state the governing law, the contract will be subject to the application of Rome I (Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008).

Payment methods

How are contractors, subcontractors, vendors and workers typically paid and is there a standard frequency for payments?

Contractors, subcontractors, vendors and workers are normally paid electronically. Frequency of payment will depend on the individual contract, but typically payment is made on a monthly or milestone basis.

Frequency of payment will also depend on whether the work being carried out falls within the ambit of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Construction Act).

If a contract is a ‘construction contract’ as defined by the Construction Act, and if the work is over 45 days in duration (or the parties agree that it will be over this duration), then the contract payments must be made on a periodic basis. In other words, the parties cannot agree that one lump sum will be paid for the entire construction project. Apart from this proviso, the parties are free to agree the amounts of payment, the intervals between payments or the circumstances in which the payment is due.

If the contract fails to comply with the Construction Act then the Scheme for Construction Contracts (the Scheme) sets out a fallback payment regime. If a contract’s payment regime does not comply with the Construction Act then the provisions that do not comply will be void and the relevant Scheme provisions will be implied in their place. If the Scheme payment regime applies, payment must be made every 28 days during the project and the final payment will be due 30 days after completion of the work or the making of a claim by the payee (whichever is later).

Contractual matrix of international projects

What is the typical contractual matrix for a major project in your jurisdiction in terms of the contractual relationships among the various construction project participants?

The main options typically seen in construction projects are described below. However, these should not be considered as mutually exclusive, and often a hybrid or tailored solution will be adopted for complex projects.

Traditional (design, bid, build)

The developer engages a team of consultants to design and specify the works in detail, and separately appoints the contractor (commonly following a competitive tender process) to construct the works as designed for a lump-sum price. This option allows the developer to retain control over the quality of design, but it is a slow (sequential) process and may not be suitable where rapid delivery is critical. It can also lead to problems of coordination between team members and issues of split responsibility for late completion or defects.

Design and build

The developer produces outline requirements only and engages a contractor to design and construct a facility that meets those requirements. Otherwise known as turnkey construction or, especially in an international context, engineering, procurement and construction (EPC). This route is potentially faster (as it allows the overlapping of design and construction) and imposes ‘single point’ liability on the contractor, thus avoiding issues of coordination and split responsibility. However, in return, the developer may lose some elements of control over design quality, as the contractor can be motivated to deliver the cheapest solution that meets the brief. It can also be expensive to make changes to the developer’s requirements during construction.

Construction management

In an engineering or international context, construction management is often known as EPCm. Under this route, the developer enters into separate package contracts with each trade contractor and engages construction management on a fee basis as part of its consultant team. Construction management does not assume contractual responsibility for delivery of the works but helps to manage the process and provides advice in areas such as programming, cost planning, buildability and packaging of work. While construction management offers advantages in terms of speed and flexibility, it does not provide initial cost certainty and the developer retains the risk of default or insolvency by trade contractors. As a result, it is generally suitable only for developers with significant resources, expertise and buying power.

PPP and PFI

Is there a formal statutory and regulatory framework for PPP and PFI contracts?

While there is no formal or statutory regulatory framework for the PPP or PFI (now PF2) forms of contracting, the Infrastructure Projects Authority, an arm’s-length body within both HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office, is responsible for guidance and advice publication, and HM Treasury has a wide role in policy.

However, the government announced in October 2018 that the PF2 form of contracting would no longer be used as it was ‘inflexible and overly complex’ and that the Office for Budget Responsibility believed the schemes to be a ‘source of significant fiscal risk to government’. Existing contracts under the PFI and PF2 system are to be honoured but no new contracts will be signed. While there is currently no UK central government (or English local authority) model PPP contract, the non-profit distributing (NPD) PPP model still technically exists in Scotland and Wales has an NPD-variant called Mutual Investment Model PPP contract, which is currently in active use for school procurement.

Joint ventures

Are all members of consortia jointly liable for the entire project or may they allocate liability and responsibility among them?

The liability of the consortia members will depend upon how they have allocated liability and responsibility among themselves as part of their commercial arrangement. However, it is often the preference of the contracting authority that all parties to the consortia are jointly and severally liable.

Tort claims and indemnity

Do local laws permit a contracting party to be indemnified against all acts, errors and omissions arising from the work of the other party, even when the first party is negligent?

Although local laws permit indemnities, the reality is that they are very rarely used in English contracts. Where they are used, they tend to be limited to circumstances of damage to or theft of third-party property, and in such cases are linked to breach of contract or negligence.

Certain losses cannot be indemnified; for example, losses caused by fraud, crimes or deliberate acts.

Liability to third parties

Where a contractor constructs a building that will be sold or leased to a third party, does the contractor bear any potential responsibility to the third party? May the third party pursue a claim against the contractor despite the lack of contractual privity?

Under English law, only parties to a contract may bring a claim under it. As a result, third parties with an interest in a building project cannot point to a breach of the building contract and use it as the basis for an action against the contractor, in respect of defects in the building. They must find another legal basis on which to bring a claim.

Collateral warranties and third-party rights are the two key vehicles that have been developed to provide third parties with a legal basis to make a claim for breach of a contract to which they are not a party.

A collateral warranty is simply a contract that is ‘collateral’ to the primary contract between a supplier and an employer under which the supplier acknowledges that it owes the same duties to the third party as it owes to the employer. Though the concept of collateral warranties is very simple, they have been a contentious subject from the outset. Suppliers (and their insurers) objected to extending rights to third parties, thus creating a potential legal liability that would not otherwise exist.

Partly in a bid to address these problems, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 was introduced. This Act creates an exception to the privity of contract rule by allowing identified third parties to bring a claim under the primary contract against a supplier that is responsible for a defect. The third party must be specified in the primary contract (either by name or class) as someone who is to obtain the benefit of the Act. The third party’s right to claim will be no greater than, and will be subject to the same defences as, a claim brought by the employer against the supplier.

The alternative is for the third party to pursue a claim in tort, most likely the tort of negligence. However, there is only a very limited ability to claim in tort in instances of defects to a building and often only in exceptional circumstances.

Insurance

To what extent do available insurance products afford a contractor coverage for: damage to the property of third parties; injury to workers or third parties; delay damages; and damages due to environmental hazards. Does the local law limit contractors’ liability for damages?

Types of insurance commonly required on a construction project include the following.

  • All-risks insurance: covering against physical loss or damage to the work executed and site materials and against the reasonable cost of removal and disposal of debris, shoring and propping of the works that results from the physical loss or damage. This is typically maintained by the contractor for a new building until practical completion, and by the employer for refurbishments and on some major projects.
  • Public liability insurance: covering liability for death or personal injury to third parties (other than the insured’s own employees) and liability for damage to property belonging to third parties. This is typically required from consultants and design and build contractors and must be renewed for the duration of their liability.
  • Professional indemnity insurance: covering claims made against the insured professional arising from the conduct of the insured’s professional activities and duties. This is normally taken out by any professional providing design services and must be maintained throughout the insured professional’s period of liability.
  • Employers’ liability insurance: covering an employer against claims from its employees for death, injury or disease arising out of their employment. This is maintained by the employer throughout the period of employment and is the only insurance required by statute (Employer’s Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969). Unless it is exempt from this Act, a party must maintain insurance cover of not less than £5 million for each occurrence.
  • Non-negligent insurance: covering liability that the employer may incur or sustain as a result of injury or damage to neighbouring property caused by collapse, subsidence, heave, vibration, weakening or removal of support or lowering of groundwater, arising out of the course or because of the works. The contractor typically maintains this insurance in its and the employer’s name.
  • Product liability insurance: covering liability for injury to people or damage to property, arising out of products supplied by a business. This is typically taken out by manufacturers and contractors.
  • Latent defects insurance: (also known as decennial insurance) protects the building owner or occupier from material fault or damage to the building. This is usually taken out when a building is constructed or altered and will typically last 10 years from the completion of those works. To call on the policy the building owner or occupier does not have to prove fault. Policies tend to cover structural defects or defects in the building envelope but will only cover other defects (such as in mechanical and electrical systems or plant) where specifically added to a policy.
  • Delay in start-up insurance (DSU): typically covers a scenario where there has been physical loss or damage that delays the start of the income stream that would have arisen from a completed project. DSU is similar in nature to business interruption insurance, which applies where a building is complete and operational but then a fault arises that interrupts the income stream.

 

Insurance against liquidated damages is not generally available in the UK insurance market.

Various environmental insurance products are available that afford coverage for losses such as historical contamination, loss from contamination caused by ongoing operations, loss arising from cost overruns during remediation, loss arising from contractors operating on third-party sites, and pollution and environmental liabilities arising from the business activities.

Limitation of liability

There are no statutory or legal provisions that impose mandatory limits on a contractor’s liability. However, it is open to the parties, subject to the constraints of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, to agree limitations on liability.

 

Source: Lexology 

Whilst problematic importing and rising costs have driven construction down in January the house-building sector remains buoyant, read the full CIPS January report below:

 

January PMI® data compiled by IHS Markit indicated a marginal decline in UK construction output, which ended a seven-month period of expansion.

The latest survey also signalled a slowdown in new order growth to its weakest since June 2020. Construction companies often noted that the third national lockdown and concerns about the near-term economic outlook had led to greater hesitancy among clients, especially for new commercial projects.Meanwhile, transport shortages and delays at UK ports resulted in another severe downturn in supplier performance during January. Around 45% of the survey panel reported longer lead times for the delivery of construction inputs, while only 1% noted an improvement. At 49.2 in January, down from 54.6 in December, the headline seasonally adjusted IHS Markit/CIPS UK Construction Total Activity Index signalled a decline in overall construction output for the first time since May 2020.

However, the rate of contraction was only marginal. A renewed fall in commercial activity (index at 46.2) and another drop in work on civil engineering projects (45.0) stood in contrast with strong growth in the residential category (57.1).  Nonetheless, the latest increase in house building was the slowest since the rebound began in June 2020. New business volumes rose slightly in January, but the rate of expansion lost considerable momentum since the end of 2020. Survey respondents mostly commented on delayed projects in the commercial segment due to the impact of the pandemic, while some also cited less favourable demand conditions for residential work. Employment numbers dropped in January, which reversed the marginal expansion seen during December. Job cuts were primarily linked to the non-replacement of leavers following project completions. Purchasing activity increased for the eighth consecutive month in January, although the rate of growth eased further from November’s recent peak. Strong demand for construction inputs and ongoing transportation issues resulted in the steepest downturn in supplier performance since May 2020. Construction companies continued to experience intense cost pressures, driven by rising prices for plaster, steel and timber. The overall rate of input price inflation accelerated to its highest for just over two-and-a-half years. Finally, latest data indicated that business expectations for the year ahead remained positive in January. However, the degree of confidence eased to a three-month low.

 

Tim Moore, Economics Director at IHS Markit, which compiles the survey: “The construction sector ended a seven-month run of expansion in January as a renewed slide in commercial work dragged down overall output volumes. House building was the only major construction segment to register growth, but momentum slowed considerably in comparison to the second half of last year. “Construction companies continued to report major delays with receiving imported products and materials from suppliers, with congestion at UK ports contributing to the sharpest lengthening of delivery times since May 2020. Adding to the squeeze on the construction sector, rising steel and timber costs led to the fastest rate of input price inflation for just over two-and-a-half years. “The latest survey highlighted that construction companies have become more cautious about the business outlook. Output rebounded quickly after stoppages on site at the start of the pandemic, but hesitancy among clients in January and worries about near-term economic conditions resulted in a dip in growth expectations for the first time in six months.”

 

Duncan Brock, Group Director at the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply:“Builders were feeling the pressure in January as new order growth across the sector fell sharply to the slowest expansion rate since June last year and the commercial sector particularly acted as a brake to sustained recovery.”Clients hesitated to commit to new workflows because of concerns around the vitality of the UK economy which in turn brought cautious job hiring and obliterated the gains made in employment numbers in December. The residential sector had been relatively immune to the effects of lockdowns and pandemic disruptions but it too was beginning to show signs of weakness for the first time in over six months. “Progress in the sector feels like two steps forward and one step back for builders, as the shortages and the longest delays in supply chains since May affected optimism and led to the sharpest rise in building costs since June 2018.”

Talented energy entrepreneurs have the chance to benefit from a share of £11 million government funding to turn their ideas into real products and services whilst eliminating carbon emissions.

Energy Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan has announced the latest round of the Energy Entrepreneurs Fund (EEF), which seeks to drive forward new clean technologies across all sectors of UK industry, supporting the UK to eliminate its contribution to climate change by 2050.

This includes innovations that boost energy efficiency in people’s homes, reduce carbon emissions and develop green transport as well as sourcing cleaner and greener ways to generate power and heat.

The UK’s budding energy entrepreneurs are being urged to bid for the latest £11 million government funding, which will support between 15 and 20 projects, with each successful bidder receiving up to £1 million.

Successful projects could create hundreds of green jobs and kickstart millions-of-pounds-worth of private sector investment across the UK, helping the country to build back greener as we host the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow this November.

Previous recipients of funding include CCm Technologies in Swindon that is working with Walkers Crisps to implement carbon capture innovations in its factory processes, and Leeds-based C-Capture, which has developed processes to capture harmful greenhouse gases, including an innovative deployment of its technology at the Drax power station in North Yorkshire.

Energy Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan said:

The UK is famous for its strong entrepreneurial spirit. We want to unleash this talent to drive forward green technologies across the UK, helping the public and businesses cut their carbon footprint.

The Energy Entrepreneurs Fund is backing the UK’s next generation of inventors and innovators to turn their ideas into reality, with previous successful projects already helping drive down emissions across the country and creating green jobs as we work to build back greener.

Since 2012, the government’s Energy Entrepreneurs Fund has awarded £72 million worth of grants, supported 156 projects and leveraged more than £500 million in private investment – a figure that is still growing.

Previous low-carbon projects that have reaped the rewards of government grants, include:

  • Axis Energy Projects, Aberdeen: received £217,160 to develop an efficient and low-cost method of anchoring floating offshore wind turbines to the seabed that could enable offshore wind technology to be positioned in more remote and deeper parts of the marine environment that are inaccessible to fixed turbines and contributing towards UK commitments to produce 40GW of wind power by 2030
  • Energy Transitions Ltd, Cardiff: received £160,793 to develop the Steel Zero system, which combines innovative stainless steel cladding panels with solar energy technology so a building’s entire façade can produce clean and efficient heat for the spaces within
  • Glass Technology Services Ltd, Sheffield: received £508,739 to lead a project with 6 partners to revolutionise glassmaking by replacing existing raw materials with ash waste from the biomass energy industry, reducing the high temperatures required in the glass production process and lowering energy requirements, costs and carbon emissions by up to 10%
  • Radfan, Newcastle: received £20,250 to develop an innovative fan unit that fixes to the top of any central heating radiator and redirects the flow of warm air horizontally into the room, preventing heat from escaping, keeping people’s rooms warm and helping to lower heating bills

UK Net Zero Business Champion, Andrew Griffith said:

I am thrilled to welcome the next stage of this excellent scheme, which is harnessing the creativity of British entrepreneurs to protect both the planet and UK industry by large and small innovations alike.

This is another great step from our government, investing in the jobs of the future and the next generation of UK business who will lead the world in eliminating emissions from industry and driving forward our green industrial revolution.

UK Government Minister for Scotland, David Duguid said:

The UK government celebrates entrepreneurship. We are committed to rewarding innovation and hard work. Entrepreneurs bring solutions to problems, such as climate change, whilst creating new jobs and supporting our economic recovery from coronavirus.

With a long history of innovation, it is no surprise Scotland is producing lots of really exciting startups – including previous Scottish recipients of the Energy Entrepreneurs Fund.

I encourage Scotland’s energy entrepreneurs to apply for a share of this £11 million UK government funding as we seek to build back better ahead of COP26 in Glasgow later this year.

Secretary of State for Wales, Simon Hart said:

The chance to share in this funding is fantastic news for promising Welsh energy entrepreneurs.   The UK government is committed to achieving net zero carbon by 2050. We will do so by investing in pioneering projects, people and businesses, creating green jobs and opportunities for people across Wales.

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Brandon Lewis said:

Northern Ireland is a nation that embodies entrepreneurial spirit and is at the forefront of our efforts to cultivate a more environmentally sustainable future across the United Kingdom. With a share of this new £11 million investment, Northern Ireland’s entrepreneurs will be able to help supercharge the United Kingdom’s ‘Green Economy’, as we continue to work towards our goal of reducing our emissions to net zero by 2050.

Northern Ireland based projects such as Senergy Innovations and Minesto have already developed cutting edge technologies to harness natural resources for energy, a testament to our extraordinary local talent. I encourage all our budding entrepreneurs to apply for this scheme to help us build back greener from the coronavirus pandemic.

Tom White, CEO C-Capture, said:

Innovations in carbon capture technology are vital in helping the UK achieve its net zero target. Energy Entrepreneurs funding enabled C-Capture to further develop and deploy its technology, to demonstrate the performance and cost advantages which will be advantageous to companies seeking to decarbonise their operations.

The support we have received from the UK government has been of fundamental importance in developing a technology has the potential to capture millions of tonnes of CO2 per year.

John Blower, CEO Energy Transitions Ltd, said:

The Energy Entrepreneurs Fund acted as a catalyst that enabled us to take forward our Steel Zero solar façade from concept towards market readiness.

BEIS’ support, both through the Energy Entrepreneurs Fund grant and the associated ‘Incubation Support’, which has assisted us in a range of areas, including branding, licensing and marketing, has had a transformational effect and helped us establish a platform from which we aim to create a global clean technology business.

John Baross, managing director Axis Energy Projects, said:

Axis Energy Projects was pleased to have received a grant from the Energy Entrepreneurs Fund. It allowed us to progress our low-cost anchoring method for floating offshore wind turbines not only on the UK Continental Shelf but on a global basis.

Such was our progress that we can now focus on offshore wind farms and on decarbonising existing and new offshore oil and gas production facilities. This would not have been possible without the grant award.

Christine Boyle, CEO Senergy Innovations, said:

For Senergy, the Energy Entrepreneurs Fund programme brought the perfect combination of critical early-stage funding and business acceleration support. The network of academic and business experts that were brought together to support our innovation journey was key to our success.

The wealth of experience both within CLT, the programme partner companies, and the international organisations they collaborate with, was key to delivering our early commercial success. A fantastic opportunity to turn an entrepreneur’s idea into a global opportunity.

In 2019, the UK became the first major economy to legally commit to ending its contribution to global warming by 2050. This commitment has been reinforced by the Prime Minister’s ten point plan and the Energy White Paper, published in 2020.

A successful Liberal Democrat amendment today will force developers to take financial responsibility for unsafe buildings and ensure the Grenfell-style cladding row in Manchester is never be repeated.

In today’s full council meeting [03/02/21], Liberal Democrat Councillor Richard Kilpatrick successfully moved an amendment which will shift the financial responsibility of recladding away from residents and leaseholders to the building’s original developers.

The move will push back against corporate giants taking advantage of residents.

In 2018, Lendlease, which reported pre-tax profits of $1.2bn a year earlier, was embroiled in a Grenfell-style cladding row in Manchester for over a year when Labour awarded the company a £330m contract to refurbish Manchester Town Hall despite fierce opposition from the Liberal Democrats.

Lib Dems slammed the decision and said Lendlease should never again be awarded a council contract until they paid for renovations on their unsafe developments.

The row rumbled on until the corporate giant finally gave in and agreed to pay for recladding.

Today’s win by the Liberal Democrats will ensure residents will never be left to foot the bill again.

The Liberal Democrat amendment was accepted and the motion passed unanimously.

Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Manchester Councillor Richard Kilpatrick said:

“Developers in Manchester have been avoiding responsibility and passing on the costs to local people. It is crippling residents and leaving many with the choice of either facing bankruptcy or selling their home for next to nothing.

“This win by the Liberal Democrats is a clear and stark warning to greedy developers that enough is enough. We will ban these outrageous costs and force you to take responsibility, whether you like it or not.

“But we want to go further: we also want to introduce a register to ensure homes receive a fire safety rating to secure desperately needed accountability and transparency.

“Too many people have too often pledged to ensure a tragedy such as Grenfell can never happen again, but not enough people are taking real action.

“I’m pleased that Labour councillors accepted the amendment put forward by the Liberal Democrats today, given they have been less than forthcoming in standing up for residents dealing with this crisis previously.

“Together we will ensure no fire will claim more innocent lives and wreck the livelihoods of people in Manchester.”

This Council notes:

  • the tragic fire in Grenfell Tower in 2017 led to a series of events which uncovered a growing scandal of residential buildings with flammable materials, missing fire breaks, and other fire safety defects;
  • that thousands of Manchester people live in such buildings, and that number continues to rise, including disabled people who face compounding difficulties including lack of specific support for their needs, additional financial pressures, and the potential exacerbation of health conditions;
  • the outstanding support that the Manchester Cladiators and CLADDAG campaigns have been providing to many residents;
  • that many are unable to sell or re-mortgage their homes due to this situation and a broken ESW1 process;
  • the support of the Executive Member for Housing & Regeneration alongside Manchester’s Members of Parliament in putting pressure on Government to seek resolution and to protect affected Manchester People;
  • that Manchester City Council has been named an early adopter of Hackitt’s Grenfell building safety review, within which the Council aims to champion building safety, to encourage cultural change across the development industry, to ensure building safety is considered ‘upfront’ to prioritise safety now, and play an active role in developing building safety policy.

This Council believes that:

  • the cladding crisis is a scandal that punishes leaseholders and Manchester people for systemic problems with building safety regulations and methods of development in England;
  • this has a cruel effect on affected Manchester people’s mental health, leaving them in unsafe homes and facing lifechanging bills;
  • it is grossly unjust that residents who bought homes in good faith should face remediation costs;
  • the Government’s Building Safety Fund is inadequate both in scope and amount, failing to protect leaseholders from costs and to accelerate remediation;
  • the Government must right broken promises, return to the original premise that no cost is past to leaseholders, abandon ‘loan schemes’, and act quickly;
  • a viable route to remediation is for payment nationally to fall on the building industry coupled with a ‘pay now, litigate later’ approach as recently developed by the Australian Labor Party State Government in Victoria.
  • Developers who delivered dangerous and unsafe buildings due to negligence and poor workmanship should remediate this work rather than expecting leaseholders to pay.

This Council resolves to:

  • thank Manchester Cladiators and all campaigners for their efforts fighting this injustice, and to continue to support them in their campaign;
  • continue supporting the End our Cladding Scandal campaign’s 10-step plan to tackle this crisis, to which Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, the Leader, and Councillors Richards, Lyons, Wheeler, Johns, Davies, and Wright are signatories
  • ask the Chief Executive to write to the Minister for Housing Communities and Local Government to ask Government to accede to those 10 asks
  • continue providing practical support to affected Manchester people, including asking the Planning Department to prioritise applications for fire-related remediation work, asking the Executive Member for Housing & Regeneration to continue to work with local groups, and helping affected Manchester people to understand their situation;
  • continue acting inclusively on this issue, including actively involving affected disabled people, raising awareness of their specific issues