5.8 Two surveys relating to the subject of this Review have produced interesting findings. Both were conducted as part of the series of the "New Builder"/JT Design Build attitude surveys. The first, during September 1993, involved a panel of 150 major companies including public and private sector clients, civil engineering contractors, materials manufacturers, subcontractors, general building contractors and professional consultants.
1. The sample considered that the main strengths of the contractual arrangements were that they were well known/established (58%) and fair (42%).
2. The main weaknesses were listed as encouraging conflict/litigation (52%), insufficiently clear (45%) and created a high level of mistrust (38%).
3. When asked to list their three most important changes to improve the general efficiency and productivity of the industry, the second most popular choice (40%) was for "simpler contracts (e.g. the New Engineering Contract) - especially for small sized projects".
_________________________________________________________________________________
(Source: New Builder, 2 October 1993.)
5.9 A further survey took place under the same auspices in March 1994. On this occasion a panel of 180 major companies was approached. Respondents were asked how the arrangements for risk apportionment within the contractual frame work could be improved. The results are shown in table 4 (with multiple answers being given). A question was also asked about the Joint Contracts Tribunal (the results are shown in table 5). 10 of the 33 clients polled were in the public sector, and 5 of them were from local authorities.
TABLE 4
In your opinion how could the arrangements for "risk" apportionment within the contractual framework be improved?
| All Respondents | |
| 1. (Further) Standardisation of contractual documentation | 52% |
| 2. More openness by parties involved on where main risks may occur at the beginning of project | 42% |
| 3. More equitable risk/reward apportionment built into contracts | 36% |
| 4. Develop a "partnership" approach to apportioning risk | 32% |
| 5. Introduction of independent adjudicators (person not employed by either client or contractor) | 28% |
| 6. (Majority of) Risk to be appointed to a single party only | 15% |
TABLE 5
How far do you agree with the statement that "the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) provides a good service for the industry and its clients"?
| Contractors | Consultants | Clients | |
| Strongly Agree | 13% | 15% | 12% |
| Slightly Agree | 61% | 42% | 28% |
| Neither | 14% | 20% | 32% |
| Slightly Disagree | 12% | 15% | 20% |
| Strongly Disagree | -% | 8% | 8% |
Source: New Builder/JT Construction Industry Attitude Survey, March 1994.