Nielsen, L-H K; Akanmu, A and Anumba, C J (2015) Comparative analysis of back-to-back subcontracts in the construction and telecommunications industries. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(4), pp. 446-460. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose - “Back-to-back” contracts are widely used in the engineering and construction industry and are recently spreading into the telecommunication industry. In back-to-back contracts, the principals require the main contractors to assume majority of the liability in delivering a project and in turn, the main contractors try to allocate most of that liability to their subcontractors. The successful delivery of the projects hinges on how the contracts are drafted and risks are allocated between the parties involved. The purpose of this paper is to undertake a comparative analysis of “back-to-back” subcontracts in the telecommunication and construction industries. Design/methodology/approach - By examining contracting practices and texts from contract documents for the telecommunication and construction industries, this paper reveals how certain aspects of “back-to-back” contracts lose their meaning when seen out of context. Using comparative research method, this paper discusses reasons why the adoption of “back-to-back” contracts should be a matter of degree, based on the business strategy and relevance to the intended transactions rather than on the typical model of “back-to-back” contracts. Findings - Good contracting practices should be such as to enable parties negotiate the contract terms to ensure clarity and common understanding before commencing the project. Construction universally adopts back-to-back even for minor straightforward works, an approach supported by readily available industry model contracts as well as the traditional tender process (design before construction). In telecoms, back-to-back is mainly desired where the subcontractor has a major part of the scope, whereas minor subcontractor scope is considered “leverage commodity” where suppliers are engaged using in-house contract templates, often in a frame contract arrangement, to satisfy corporate strategies for supplier management and pricing. Originality/value - This paper provides value by presenting an insightful review of the nature of back-to-back contracting practices in the telecommunication and construction industries. The paper outlines advantages, disadvantages and opportunities for improving “back-to-back” contracting practices in the telecommunication and construction industries.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; telecommunication; projects; back-to-back; model contracts; subcontracts |
| Index terms: | supplier management, comparative analysis, contract arrangement, comparative research, business strategy, meaning, contract term, subcontract, corporate strategy, pricing, liability, main contractor, subcontractor, construction industry, contract document, telecommunication, model contracts, methodology |
| Subjects: | liability law, industry analysis, sociology, contractual condition, research methods, economic analysis, supplier oversight, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, communication, practitioner, contract type, business, standard forms of contract, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Supply Chain Management, Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Governance, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here