|
Client/consultant agreement
An agreement between Client and Consultant sets down the Services required by the Client
and the conditions under which the Consultant will provide these Services. The essential
commitment of a Consulting Engineer is to serve the interests of his Client as a faithful
adviser adhering to his professional standards and putting all the benefits of his
experience and expertise at the disposal of his Client. The relationship between Client
and Consultant, though formally set out in the Agreement, depends for its success on the
development of mutual trust and co-operation. From such a relationship will develop a
joint commitment to achieving the defined goal.
Current Situation
Consulting Engineers in many countries are faced with a situation where they are often
asked to provide Earnest Money Deposit or Bid Bond or Guarantees while bidding for
tenders of consultancy work floated both by public sector and private sector.
This creates a host of problems for the Consulting Engineers:
- It blocks cash/bank limits unnecessarily, putting a strain on the Consulting
Engineer's cash flow and limits the ability to grow and improve performance.
- Consultancy being a "knowledge industry, a consultant may often not have
adequate assets to offer as security to a bank for issuing bid bonds/ guarantees.
In the absence of adequate bank limits/cash, Consultants often lose out of jobs
which they are otherwise well equipped to handle.
- In countries where local banking sector is weak, clients often ask for bid
bonds/guarantees to be issued by international banks compounding the problems
of the consultant.
- With tightening of capital adequacy norms, banks are very selective in
issuing bid bonds/guarantees, also the cost of issuing bid bonds/guarantees
has increased steeply. This is pushing up the costs of the consultant.
- It becomes extremely difficult for the consultants to retrieve the
EMD/ Bid Bonds/ Guarantee for projects where the consultant is not
awarded the tender. The decision process gets unduly delayed thus
blocking EMD for long time. Sometimes, these EMDs are even converted
into security deposit, if the job is awarded. This issue also needs
to be addressed as the Security Deposit gets blocked till the end of
project or even after defects liability period.
- Client Consultant relationship to a large extent depends on trust
and mutual co-operation. Asking for EMD/Bid Bonds/ Guarantees belies
this trust.
- Call for EMD/Bid Bonds/ Guarantees is a procedure generally followed
while inviting tenders for construction work or supply of plant and
equipment/other materials etc and this condition is imposed to ensure
that the tender is supported by an entity that has the resources to
implement the job. This yardstick should not be applied to
"Consultants" because primarily a consultant is not a "Contractor"
as the former provides services based on knowledge and experience.
Procurement of services is different from procurement of goods and works.
Bid or Tender bonds
In cases where Consultants are required to bid competitively, Clients
sometimes require that a Tender Bond accompanies the bid. Ostensibly
the purpose of this bond is twofold. Firstly, to ensure that a bidder
does not change his mind and cancel his bid and, secondly, to exclude
non-serious bidders.
As financial compensation does not help the Client towards his objective
of securing a trusted Consultant to work with him on the project. FIDIC
is not in favour of Tender Bonds. It believes that other methods, such
as pre-qualifications for a short list, followed by presentations and
negotiations are more likely to succeed in securing for the Client a
Consultant of integrity and trust.
Advance payment guarantees
Agreements may specify that an advance payment shall be made to the
Consultant to cover heavy initial costs such as mobilisation, purchase
of plant, computer equipment or travel and housing costs for staff.
Advance payments are generally about 10 percent of the fee but they
may be as much as 25% or 30% of the fee, and an Advance Payment Guarantee
is usually required by Clients as a security to cover this payment. As
this type of guarantee is linked to the advance payment, the amount of
the guarantee should reduce in step with the repayment of the advance.
Retentions
FIDIC does not support the use of Retention of part of the Consultant's
fee to supposedly ensure proper performance of the services under a
consultancy agreement. On completion of the Agreement there is no
further performance to guarantee and the Consultant will be already
carrying liability for his performance.
Performance bonds
Performance Bonds, as their name implies, are designed to guarantee the
proper and timely completion of the Consultant's duties under the Agreement.
The wording of such a bond is very important as it will specify the
conditions under which the bond may be forfeit. Non-performance has
to be established before the bond can be called.
The use of Performance Bonds of this type, in Consultancy Agreements,
has over the last many years almost disappeared. They are however
occasionally used in connection with Construction contracts, particularly
in the United States. Performance Bonds are often issued by Insurance
Companies. FIDIC does not support the use of Performance Bonds.
"On-Demand" bonds
In recent years there has been increasing use of "On-Demand" Bonds under
which a bank or other surety guarantees to make payment when so requested,
without any necessity to prove lack of performance. As the name implies an
"On-Demand" Bond is given (normally by a bank) to a Client in a form which
allows the Client to call the bond, and thus receive payment to the full
value of the bond, whenever he (the Client) believes there to be lack of
performance by the Consultant. The bank is obliged to honour the Bond as
it is payable "On-Demand" and there is no redress. Clearly a Client will
normally not take such action until all other means of settling the dispute
have been exhausted and the Consultant will take all possible measures to
avoid putting his Client into such a position. In addition, no Client will
wish to be accused of, or earn a reputation for, unjust calling.
FIDIC does not believe that the use of "On-Demand" Bonds will add to the
likelihood of high quality performance, and deprecates their use as they
create a potentially confrontational situation which militates against
successful co-operation between Client and Consultant. Misuse of such
Bonds by delaying their release is counter-productive, as it causes
severe problems, and economic difficulty and loss to the Consultant
involved.
Cost
It is often overlooked that all bonds, but particularly "On-Demand"
Bonds, are costly to acquire and set in place, and will therefore
ultimately add to the price the Client pays for the Consultant's
services. In exceptional cases the Consultant may also feel that
there is additional risk associated with the project and for this
reason may add to his price.
Therefore, FIDIC recommends as follows:
- In general, contract guarantees, such as Earnest Money Deposit,
Bid Bonds, Performance Bonds and Retention Funds, serve little useful
purpose under a consultancy agreement between a Client and a Consulting
Engineer. They increase the overall cost without influencing the performance
of the services. They should be avoided. Advance Payment Bonds are acceptable
as they guarantee repayment of funds advanced by the Client.
- On-Demand Bonds are by their nature, one-sided and confrontational.
FIDIC opposes the use of these bonds.
- A Client and Consulting Engineer should consider that the interposition
of bonds between them is likely to have an adverse effect on the relationship
between them which should be based on mutual trust and cooperation.
- However, if a Client is obliged by local law to require a Bid Bond, the
conditions should not make subsequent failure to reach agreement a justification
for calling the bond, as both Client and Consulting Engineer should be free
to withdraw, if there are considerations that deter either from proceeding.
Reference:
1.
FIDIC Client/Consultant Model Services Agreement, Third Edition, 1998.
Approved by FIDIC Executive Committee in July 1991; updated with minor
changes 2001.
|