Metropolitan Housing Trust is advertising a £20m contract opportunity to build a 14-acre residential development on the former site of RAF Brampton in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire. The development will have 36 flats arranged in four three-storey blocks, and 174 houses that are predominantly two-storey semi-detached. Tender documents are available via www.delta-esourcing.com using access code: 25723GWM39.     This article was published on 28 Sep 2016 (last updated on 28 Sep 2016). Source link

Jonathan Pawlowski, partner at Brecher Solicitors, reviews the lessons of Leeds City Council v Waco UK Ltd. Above: Jonathan Pawlowski is a partner at Brecher Solicitors Payment provisions under the majority of construction contracts are governed by the requirements put in place by the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996. These provisions have caught out many an unwary employer, but the recent case of Leeds City Council v Waco UK Ltd saw a contractor fall foul of the statutory requirements and lose its right to payment. A construction contract must clearly outline the amounts and timing of payments, which must be made in instalments, until the project is complete. It must also include a “payment due date”, (when a sum crystallises but does not have to be paid), and a “final date for payment” (a set date by which the payment must be made) for each instalment. Some construction contracts allow the contractor to issue an application for payment a few days prior to each “payment due date”, but this is not a statutory requirement. The Construction Act allows for two important notices: the “payment notice” and the “pay less notice”. Within five days of each payment due date, the payer should issue a payment notice. The payment notice is the payer’s valuation of the work carried out up to the payment due date, regardless of whether the contractor has submitted an application for payment. If the employer fails to serve a payment notice, the contractor may submit its own payment notice, identifying the sum which it says is due by the final date for payment. The application for payment may serve as the contractor’s payment notice. If, before the final date for payment the payer has grounds for paying less than the sum originally stipulated (e.g. a claim for liquidated damages), then the payer must issue a pay less notice, which sets out the revised sum the payer considers is now due. The pay less notice must be served no later than a prescribed period before the final date for payment. The parties are free to agree the prescribed period, but if this is not stated in the contract, the period is deemed to be seven days before the final date for payment. The penalty for failing to serve a pay less notice can be harsh. In the absence of a valid pay less notice, the employer has to pay the entire amount certified in the payment notice. If this results in an overpayment, then the payer must correct the position in the next payment cycle. The Leeds City Council case gives us an interesting insight into circumstances where the requirements of the Construction Act prevented the contractor from being paid. Here, the parties entered into a JCT Design & Build Contract. Prior to practical completion, the contractor was to be paid on the 26th of each month. After practical completion, interim payments were to be made at intervals of two months. Before practical completion, most of the contractor’s monthly applications for the payment were submitted late. Nonetheless, the contract administrator treated the applications as if they had been made on time. After practical completion, the contractor continued in the same vein, making applications for payment which did not follow the exact dates set out in the contract. The contractor issued interim application for payment number 21, for just under £500,000. Leeds City Council refused to pay, but did not serve a payment notice or a pay less notice. The contractor referred the dispute to adjudication, where the case was found in favour of the contractor on the grounds that the council had failed to serve the requisite notices. The council still refused to pay and the contractor issued proceedings in Court, for summary judgment, to enforce the Adjudicator’s decision. The Court refused to grant summary judgment and instead, granted Leeds City Council permission to defend the case on the condition that it paid the contractor the sum awarded by the Adjudicator. Leeds City Council’s argument was that the contractor had no entitlement to be paid on any dates other than those specified in the contract. It argued that the interim application was made six days early and this rendered it invalid. The contractor’s defence was that the parties had agreed to vary the dates for payment, which was evidenced by a course of conduct: they had never followed any of the contract dates. The Court dismissed the contractor’s defence and found in favour of Leeds City Council. This case provides a warning to contractors not to be overly efficient and issue applications for payment early. The contractor could not rely on the course of conduct in this case as evidence of an agreement to vary the dates for making interim payment applications – the course of conduct argument only allowed Leeds City Council to accept an application for payment if it was a few days late. However, the position with interim application number 21 went well beyond this understanding. There was no evidence that the council had waived its right to object to an application for payment when it was issued before the specified date. If a contractor submits an application for payment early, an employer may challenge the validity of the application on the grounds that it is premature even if it fails to serve the requisite notices. The contractor’s remedy is to wait for the next “payment due date” and make a fresh application for payment. This case serves as a reminder not to place your carefully drafted contract in the bottom drawer of your desk and let it gather dust.  Check the contract payment dates and make sure they are adhered to, right up to the issue of the final certificate.       This article was published on 3 Aug 2015 (last updated on 3 Aug 2015). Source link

I enjoyed the Rio Olympics but they weren’t a patch on ours back in 2012.  I’m definitely biased though – as an East Londoner, I was thrilled when we won the Olympic bid. It brought the prospect of a world class sporting event (and massive street party) to my doorstep. What I didn’t realise was that it would also bring much-needed regeneration to my area which would be life-changing for so many, including me. As a teenager I trained as a carpenter and worked on a number of sites across London before setting up my own business. I love the innovative side of construction, having the opportunity to create something useful, visible and tangible that will remain for years after I am gone. I love being able to say, “See that building? I was part of the making of that.” When I began teaching carpentry at a college in north London, I learned how few women were entering the industry and for those who did, how difficult it was to get ahead. The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) wanted to do things differently and leave a legacy for this particularly deprived area of East London. One of its initiatives was the Women into Construction project, aimed at supporting women wanting to enter the construction industry. As soon as I found out about it, I applied for a position. Funded by CITB and the London Development Agency (LDA), our purpose was to provide a holistic approach to encourage women into the industry and broker opportunities for them. With the full support of the ODA, contractors were willing to do things differently and with this active intervention, women were soon working on all areas of the Olympic site. It was amazing to watch the change in culture on site. There were more than double the usual numbers of women on site and although still in the minority, they were accepted, encouraged and supported. I worked with so many talented and determined women who were delighted to have the opportunity to be part of this iconic build, including Annika, a former student of mine. Annika had become pregnant towards the end of her L2 Carpentry qualification and despite my full support, decided to leave without completing the course. Three years on and a single mother of two, she heard about Women into Construction and decided to finish her studies. Annika commenced work at the Athlete’s Village, working there before and after the games, developing her skills and gaining her full qualification. Four years later, Annika works as a shuttering carpenter on several large sites across London. She’s proud of her achievements and loves telling her kids, ‘Mummy worked on the Olympic site’. The project has continued to develop across London and Annika is just one of 600 women we’ve placed at iconic sites like the Shard and Crossrail. Women into Construction now operates across London as an independent, not-for-profit organisation. With a tiny staff of just two and a half roles, we have advised over 1700 women and trained over 1200. We’ve supported 300 into work placements and helped 600 gain sustainable, paid employment – a legacy of the London 2012 Games. To talk to Kath about Women into Construction, please email kath.moore@women.intoconstruction.org  Source link

Latest numbers from builders’ merchants indicates a rise in sales in the second quarter of 2016. Sales figures collated by GfK for the Builders Merchants Federation (BMF) show sales April to June sales were up both on the previous quarter and on the same quarter of 2015. The second quarter report covers the three months leading up to the Brexit vote but despite reports of pre-referendum jitters, builders’ merchants’ turnover remained robust.  Total merchant sales in Q2 were up by 6.2% on the same period last year with total ex-Vat sales of £1.44bn compared to £1.36bn in 2015.  This was, however, assisted by two additional trading days in the 2016 quarter. Year-on-year sales growth was particularly strong in Ironmongery (+7.8%), Landscaping (+7.7%), Heavy Building Materials (6.5%) and Plumbing & Heating and Electrical (+6.4%).  Five other categories grew more slowly but still exceeded the same period last year.  Only the volatile category of Renewables and Water Saving saw sales fall. Quarter-on-quarter, total Q2  sales were 13.7% ahead of Q1, driven by Landscaping in its peak season (+58.1%) and Heavy Building Materials (+14.8%), the latter being the largest single category accounting for almost 45% of all builders merchant sales by value.  The Builders Merchant Building Index (BMBI) for Q2 2016 was 113.6, its highest level over the past four quarters. BMF managing director John Newcomb said:  “Economic and political uncertainty in the run-up to the EU referendum was expected to cause a slow-down in the construction sector. However, sales data from the Builders Merchants Panel is telling a different, and far more positive, story. “That said, the BMBI report includes various macro indicators supplied by GfK including a dramatic post-Brexit 11 point drop in consumer confidence in July.  But with the Bank of England reacting quickly on borrowing rates, and the continuing need for housing this may be no more than a blip. The pattern will become clearer in the autumn when we have the Q3 figures to hand, but in the meantime we remain confident that the market will continue to perform strongly.”     This article was published on 24 Aug 2016 (last updated on 24 Aug 2016). Source link