5.22 I turn now to consider the existing building and civil engineering industry committees dealing with contract conditions. Some evidence to the Review has called for the abolition of one or both of them.
5.23 The two committees charged with delivering the Standard Forms of Contract - the JCT and the CCSJC - are separate. The Banwell Committee in 1964 recommended that there should be one single joint contract form for building and civil engineering. That was rejected by a joint meeting of the JCT and the Joint Contracts Committee (now the CCSJC) as a "doctrinaire objective". However, the Economic Development Committee (EDC) for Civil Engineering in its commentary on Banwell in 1968 ("Contracting in Civil Engineering Since Banwell") and the equivalent report of the EDC for Building in 1967 ("Action on the Banwell Report") were much less dismissive. But no joint contract has been devised by the two committees. The ICE 5th and 6th conditions have both been published since the Banwell Report. The Department of Transport, which is the largest single procurer for civil engineering work, uses ICE 5th (with amendments). It has also introduced its own design and construct contract, with no direct involvement of the CCSJC. The Scottish Office Roads Department, another substantial procurer, has introduced its Alternative Tender Initiative, which appears to be highly successful in its out-turn results but drew initial criticism from some sections of the industry for its transference of risk. The ICE, which is a constituent party to the CCSJC, has produced the New Engineering Contract. While there was extensive public discussion of the NEC, the working party which prepared it over 8 years did not work within the confines of the CCSJC.
5.24 The CCSJC itself has an interesting structure. Contractors are represented through the FCEC and consultant engineers through the ACE. But clients are represented through the Institution of Civil Engineers, which is a learned society embracing individual civil engineers in all kinds of employment or self-employment. It is not an organisation of clients as such. There is no direct representation of subcontractors on the CCSJC. It is a source of grievance to subcontractors that while the Federation of Associations of Specialists and Subcontractors (FASS) and the Confederation of Associations of Specialist Engineering Contractors (CASEC) "approved" the "Blue" FCEC subcontract form linked to ICE 5th, they were not invited by the FCEC to do the same for the amended version to go with the 6th edition. The amendments to the "Blue Form" were not controversial. They consisted of stepping down the changes made to the main contract. The reason why the subcontractors were not involved appears to have been that it took 10 years to reach agreement on the 5th edition's "Blue Form". The FCEC was apparently concerned that the subcontractors would insist upon re-opening wider debate upon the whole "Blue Form" if they were consulted about the changes to the 6th edition version.
5.25 I believe that the time is now ripe for radical changes to the JCT and the CCSJC. I consider each of them in turn.