26th April 2006, 07:17 PM
Well, as I say, if an employer pays a sum of money to a consultant for both "consultancy" services AND to have the "physical" work done, then the consultant is no longer a consultant, he is the contractor. There is no direct contractual link between the employer and the "actual" contractor. This would not be recommended (possibly not permitted) in other disciplines due to a potential conflict of interest. However, there must be a form of contract in that case between the employer and the consultant/contractor, and a normal consultancy agreement would be wholly inadequate. It's a bit like a design and build contract (awful concept but thats by the bye).
I wonder why employers find it cumbersome as they would for example employ an architect (and engineers, QS etc i.e. the consultants) and will also contract directly with the building contractor, and much bigger sums are usually involved. Same thing, and as I understand it, was the original intention of the roles at the outset of PPG16, even using the same terminology and names of roles.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
I wonder why employers find it cumbersome as they would for example employ an architect (and engineers, QS etc i.e. the consultants) and will also contract directly with the building contractor, and much bigger sums are usually involved. Same thing, and as I understand it, was the original intention of the roles at the outset of PPG16, even using the same terminology and names of roles.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.