15 August 2018
3 min read
#Construction, Infrastructure & Projects
Published by:
Large users of construction and related contractors, particularly in the public sector, often establish panels from which they can engage contractors for individual engagements.
Sometimes these panel engagements are formal (involving a Deed of Standing Offer, a Panel Deed, a set of Terms and Conditions, and relevant Schedules such as pricing), and sometimes they are more informal. Regardless of whether a panel is formal or informal, it is usually a very efficient way of engaging contractors for specific works and services.
In the recent case of Austar Plumbing Services Pty Ltd v Sydney Water Corporation[1] Sydney Water’s ability to deal with a non-performing contractor on a panel has been confirmed as appropriate by the Supreme Court of NSW.
Facts of the Case
Austar had been on Sydney Water’s panel of authorised providers for over 14 years, between July 2003 and November 2017.
Between 2013 and 2017 Austar received 47 Corrective Action Requests from Sydney Water regarding poor performance. Further, it received 5 additional written warnings between December 2015 and May 2017 in relation to unsatisfactory performance, warning that if it failed to satisfy the mandatory criteria for listed providers it risked being removed from the panel.
After a further incident in October 2017, where Safework issued a Prohibition Order, Sydney Water issued a show cause notice to Austar.
Austar submitted a response conceding the issue, but requested that it be allowed to remain on the panel provided it complied with Sydney Water’s conditions in future.
Despite this request Sydney Water removed Austar from the relevant panel of approved contractors.
The Dispute
The two main arguments put forward by Austar were:
The Decision
The court considered that the contractual duty to act in good faith and the administrative law obligations overlapped and so considered Sydney Water’s conduct in relation to these issues together.
The court found that the conduct of Sydney Water in removing Austar from its panel of prequalified contractors was appropriate and not in breach of either an implied term of good faith, or administrative law obligations.
Conclusion
Panels are a very effective way of engaging contractors where there is a regularity of demand and the values are relatively low.
This case should give comfort to those using panels that they can be appropriately administered where there is a non-performing contactor and that, provided performance monitoring and reporting is part of the panel administration, panel owners can safely remove non-performing panellists.
Authors: Scott Alden & Philippa Lo
[1] [2018] NSWC 864
Contacts:
Brisbane
Troy Lewis, Partner & National Head of Construction and Infrastructure
T: +61 7 3135 0614
E: troy.lewis@holdingredlich.com
Stephen Burton, Partner
T: +61 7 3135 0604
E: stephen.burton@holdingredlich.com
Suzy Cairney, Partner
T: +61 7 3135 0684
E: suzy.cairney@holdingredlich.com
Melbourne
Stephen Natoli, Partner
T: +61 3 9321 9796
E: stephen.natoli@holdingredlich.com
Kyle Siebel, Partner
T: +61 3 9321 9877
E: kyle.siebel@holdingredlich.com
Sydney
Scott Alden, Partner
T: +61 2 8083 0419
E: scott.alden@holdingredlich.com
Christine Jones, Partner
T: +61 2 8083 0477
E: christine.jones@holdingredlich.com
Helena Golovanoff, Partner
T: +61 2 8083 0443
E: helena.golovanoff@holdingredlich.com
Disclaimer
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources.
Published by:
