Differences Between JCT and NEC (Coursework Sample)

1.1 Differences between JCT and NEC
The differences between JCT and NEC are classified in terms of Drafting and Structure; Pricing and Scope and finally Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.
No.

In terms of:

JTC

NEC

i

Drafting and Structure

JCT contracts are often used for local projects for instance in Wales and England only and also with other conditions related to construction in Scotland CITATION Tho02 \l 1033 (Telford, 2002).

NEC is often used in international contracts especially with its language and the governing law CITATION The16 \l 1033 (The Joint Contracts Tribunal Limited, 2016).

ii

Process of Payment

Section 4 of the Design and Build Contract 2016 provides that payment ought to be monthly, and the due dates are provided for in the Interim valuation date CITATION Tho02 \l 1033 (Telford, 2002).

NEC payment process is based on establishing the assessment dates which in return determine the due dates for the application for payments CITATION nec14 \l 1033 (nec, 2014).

iii

Dispute Resolution
Mechanism

Section 9 of the Design and Build Contract 2016 provides for settlement of disputes through the following order, Negotiation, Mediation, Adjudication and Arbitration CITATION The16 \l 1033 (The Joint Contracts Tribunal Limited, 2016).

NEC there are three W options to fulfil with the international use where W1 refers a matter to Senior Representatives and W2 can refer to adjudication at any time, and W3 refers its matter to the Dispute Avoidance Board (DAB) and the latter is tribunal or arbitration CITATION nec14 \l 1033 (nec, 2014).

1.2 Whether Bloomsbury County Council used the most suitable standard form contract
From the above discussed differences, the following key aspects distinguish JCT from NEC:
* The JCT has come up with a concept termed as determination where the contract can be terminated for different reasons being; Failure to proceed in a diligent and consistent manner, bankruptcy, defective works still in the site, failure to follow the terms of the contract as stipulated and Suspending of works.
* In case of any dispute that may arise, the aggrieved party may refer the dispute to adjudication which is a quick way of resolving dispute as well as other methods as well if the adjudication fails.
* The way JCT is designed to be used in domestic contracts means that in Bloomsbury County Council, then NEC was not the best standard contract form to use CITATION Dra22 \l 1033 (Drake, n.d.).
From the above discussion, it is clear that Bloomsbury County Council used the suitable standard form contract being JCT. JCT is designed in a way to suit domestic contracts CITATION Dra22 \l 1033 (Drake, n.d.) and Bloomsbury County Council is a domestic contract and whose mode of payment suits Drake Construction.
Issue 2
2.1 Abnormally Low Tenders
Public Contracting Authorities have an obligation to obtain prior clarification in regard to all abnormally low tenders before awarding them CITATION Dra221 \l 1033 (Drake, n.d.). Although The Public Regulations 2015 does don’t define what abnormally low tenders are, it is imperative to know and understand that, “the bid ought to be beyond and below what a reasonable man may legitimately define as normal” CITATION Dra221 \l 1033 (Drake, n.d.) .
2.2 Most Economically Advantageous Tender (“MEAT”)
In terms of fulfilling the requirements in MEAT, Bloomsbury County Council informs us that indeed Drake Construction qualified. What Bloomsbury County Council fails to mention is whether the issue of quality/ price ration CITATION Dra22 \l 1033 (Drake, n.d.) was evaluated with Drake Construction. There is no evidence that has been tabled towards this claim and therefore posits a huge problem with the way the tender was awarded to Drake Construction.
Bloomsbury County Council ought to have created an evaluation methodology that clearly explains the procurement process whose aim is to select a tender that meets the threshold in regard to quality and price. In Harmon v House of Commons, stipulates that, “all tenders must be issued fairly and equally. Tenders therefore ought to be decided after detailed evaluation has been carried out and even the evaluation detail of the whole process being kept satisfactory.” Based on the Harmon case, the awarding of the tender to Drake Construction is flawed. There is no detailed evaluation that is given and no evaluation detail whatsoever is kept.
2.3 Obligations of a Public Body in relation to abnormally low tenders
The Public Regulations 2015 obligates the Public Contracting Authorities to make inquiries in a bid to seek justification on all abnormally low tenders. Upon inquiring and making consultations, the Public Contracting Authority has the obligation to reject abnormally low tenders if such a low price is reached for lack of complying with employment regulation, social and environmental requirements CITATION Uni15 \l 1033 (United Kingdom, 2015).